Evaluation of Quality of Recovery With Quality of Recovery-15 Score After Closed-Loop Anesthesia Delivery System-Guided Propofol Versus Desflurane General Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transabdominal Robotic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND: Robotic technique of surgery allows surgeons to perform complex procedures in difficult-to-access areas of the abdominal/pelvic cavity (eg, radical prostatectomy and radical hysterectomy) with improved access and precision approach. At the same time, automated techniques efficiently deliver propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with lower anesthetic consumption. As both above are likely to bring benefit to the patients, it is imperative to explore their effect on postanesthesia recovery. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) is a comprehensive patient-reported measure of the quality of postanesthesia recovery and assesses compendious patients’ experiences (physical and mental well-being). This randomized study assessed the effect of automated propofol TIVA versus inhaled desflurane anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery using the QoR-15 questionnaire in patients undergoing elective robotic surgery. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients undergoing robotic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were randomly allocated to receive propofol TIVA administered by closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) (CLADS group) or desflurane GA (desflurane group). Postoperative QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 (POD-1) and postoperative day 2 (POD-2) (primary outcome variables), individual QoR-15 item scores (15 nos.), intraoperative hemodynamics (heart rate, mean blood pressure), anesthesia depth consistency, anesthesia delivery system performance, early recovery from anesthesia (time-to-eye-opening, and time to tracheal extubation), and postoperative adverse events (sedation, postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], pain, intraoperative awareness recall) (secondary outcome variables) were analyzed. RESULTS: On POD-1, the CLADS group scored significantly higher than the desflurane group in terms of “overall” QoR-15 score (QoR-15 score: 114.5 ± 13 vs 102.1 ± 20.4; P = .001) and 3 individual QoR-15 “items” scores (“feeling rested” 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 6.4 ± 2.2, P = .007; “good sleep” 7.8 ± 1.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.7, P = .027; and “feeling comfortable and in control” 8.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.4, P = .006). On the POD-2, the CLADS group significantly outscored the desflurane group with respect to the “overall” QoR-15 score (126.0 ± 13.6 vs 116.3 ± 20.3; P = .011) and on “5” individual QoR-15 items (“feeling rested” 8.1 ± 1.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.0, P = .003; “able to return to work or usual home activities” 6.0 ± 2.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.6, P = .008; “feeling comfortable and in control” 8.6 ± 1.2 vs 7.7 ± 1.9, P = .004; “feeling of general well-being” 7.8 ± 1.6 vs 6.9 ± 2.0, P = .042; and “severe pain” 9.0 ± 1.9 vs 8.1 ± 2.5, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Automated propofol TIVA administered by CLADS is superior to desflurane inhalation GA with respect to early postoperative recovery as comprehensively assessed on the QoR-15 scoring system. The effect of combined automated precision anesthesia and surgery (robotics) techniques on postoperative recovery may be explored further.