The effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on the quality of recovery after endoscopic sinus surgery

BACKGROUND: It remains to be determined whether opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) is consistently effective for different types of surgery. OBJECTIVES: The current study hypothesised that OFA could effectively inhibit intraoperative nociceptive responses, reduce side effects associated with opioid use, and improve the quality of recovery (QoR) in endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). DESIGN: A multicentre randomised controlled study. SETTING: Seven hospitals participated in this multicentre trial from May 2021 to December 2021. PATIENTS: Of the 978 screened patients who were scheduled for elective ESS, 800 patients underwent randomisation, and 773 patients were included in the analysis; 388 patients in the OFA group and 385 patients in the opioid anaesthesia group. INTERVENTIONS: The OFA group received balanced anaesthesia with dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, propofol and sevoflurane; the opioid anaesthesia group received opioid-based balanced anaesthesia using sufentanil, remifentanil, propofol and sevoflurane. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 24-h postoperative QoR as evaluated by the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. The key secondary outcomes were episodes of postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). RESULTS: A significant difference ( P = 0.0014) in the total score of 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-40 was found between the OFA group, median [interquartile range], 191 [185 to 196] and the opioid anaesthesia group (194 [187 to 197]). There were significant differences between the opioid anaesthesia group and the OFA group in the numerical rating scale score for pain after surgery at 30 min ( P = 0.0017), 1 h ( P = 0.0052), 2 h ( P = 0.0079) and 24 h ( P = 0.0303). The difference in the area under the curve of pain scale scores between the OFA group (24.2 [3.0 to 47.5]) and the opioid anaesthesia group (11.5 [1.0 to 39.0]) was significant ( P = 0.0042). PONV occurred in 58 of 385 patients (15.1%) in the opioid anaesthesia group compared with 27 of 388 patients (7.0%) in the OFA group, suggesting the incidence of PONV in the OFA group was significantly lower than in the opioid anaesthesia group ( P = 0.0021). CONCLUSION: OFA can provide good intraoperative analgesia and postoperative recovery quality as effectively as conventional opioid anaesthesia in patients undergoing ESS. OFA can be an alternative option in the pain management of ESS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100046158; registry URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx .).