Alessandro Torre1, Michele Marengo2, Nicola S Ledingham3, Costanza Ajani3, Francesco Volontè4, Fabio Garofalo1, Francesco Mongelli5. 1. Department of Surgery, Lugano Regional Hospital, EOC, Via Tesserete, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. 2. Department of Surgery, Locarno Regional Hospital, EOC, Via Dell'Ospedale, 6600, Locarno, Switzerland. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Lugano Regional Hospital, EOC, Via Tesserete, 6900, Lugano, Switzerland. 4. Department of Surgery, Sant'Anna Clinic, Via Sant'Anna 1, 6924, Lugano, Switzerland. 5. Department of Surgery, Bellinzona e Valli Regional Hospital, EOC, via Ospedale 12, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland. francesco.mongelli@mail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery are at particular high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Few studies have shown the superiority of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) over general anesthesia with opioids in bariatric surgery. The aim was to investigate the potential advantages of the OFA in bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database that included bariatric patients over a 3-year period. All patients who underwent bariatric surgery at our institution were included and divided into opioid-free or standard anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. Data was collected and analyzed using a propensity score. RESULTS: We included 344 patients, of these 209 (60.8%) received opioid-free and 135 (39.2%) received a standard anesthesia. Mean age was 46.2 ± 11.2 years, 265 (77.0%) patients were female, and 238 (69.2%) had at least one associated medical problem. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, BMI, associated medical problems, and type of operations. Postoperatively, we observed no significant difference in opioid requirement, while significantly less doses of antiemetics were administered in the OFA group at postoperative day 1 (0.4 ± 0.7 vs. 0.7 ± 1.0 doses, p = 0.006) and 2 (0.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6 doses, p = 0.022). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the OFA group (2.8 ± 0.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.0 days, p < 0.001) both in the overall and in the propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSION: OFA is effective for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Perioperative outcomes are similar, while OFA patients required less antiemetics and were discharged earlier from hospital.
PURPOSE: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery are at particular high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Few studies have shown the superiority of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) over general anesthesia with opioids in bariatric surgery. The aim was to investigate the potential advantages of the OFA in bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study on a prospectively collected database that included bariatric patients over a 3-year period. All patients who underwent bariatric surgery at our institution were included and divided into opioid-free or standard anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the length of hospital stay. Data was collected and analyzed using a propensity score. RESULTS: We included 344 patients, of these 209 (60.8%) received opioid-free and 135 (39.2%) received a standard anesthesia. Mean age was 46.2 ± 11.2 years, 265 (77.0%) patients were female, and 238 (69.2%) had at least one associated medical problem. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, BMI, associated medical problems, and type of operations. Postoperatively, we observed no significant difference in opioid requirement, while significantly less doses of antiemetics were administered in the OFA group at postoperative day 1 (0.4 ± 0.7 vs. 0.7 ± 1.0 doses, p = 0.006) and 2 (0.1 ± 0.4 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6 doses, p = 0.022). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the OFA group (2.8 ± 0.9 vs. 3.5 ± 2.0 days, p < 0.001) both in the overall and in the propensity score-matched analyses. CONCLUSION: OFA is effective for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Perioperative outcomes are similar, while OFA patients required less antiemetics and were discharged earlier from hospital.
Authors: Ashish C Sinha; Preet Mohinder Singh; Noel W Williams; Edward Andrew Ochroch; Basavana G Goudra Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: A Thorell; A D MacCormick; S Awad; N Reynolds; D Roulin; N Demartines; M Vignaud; A Alvarez; P M Singh; D N Lobo Journal: World J Surg Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Richard Welbourn; Marianne Hollyman; Robin Kinsman; John Dixon; Ronald Liem; Johan Ottosson; Almino Ramos; Villy Våge; Salman Al-Sabah; Wendy Brown; Ricardo Cohen; Peter Walton; Jacques Himpens Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: C C Apfel; F M Heidrich; S Jukar-Rao; L Jalota; C Hornuss; R P Whelan; K Zhang; O S Cakmakkaya Journal: Br J Anaesth Date: 2012-10-03 Impact factor: 9.166
Authors: Christian C Apfel; Kari Korttila; Mona Abdalla; Heinz Kerger; Alparslan Turan; Ina Vedder; Carmen Zernak; Klaus Danner; Ritva Jokela; Stuart J Pocock; Stefan Trenkler; Markus Kredel; Andreas Biedler; Daniel I Sessler; Norbert Roewer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-06-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Geltrude Mingrone; Simona Panunzi; Andrea De Gaetano; Caterina Guidone; Amerigo Iaconelli; Giuseppe Nanni; Marco Castagneto; Stefan Bornstein; Francesco Rubino Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 79.321