Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The airway reflex such as cough is common accompanied with severe fluctuations of hemodynamics during emergence. This prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial tested the hypothesis that topical ropivacaine may reduce extubation response and postoperative sore throat. Methods Fifty-four patients undergoing thyroidectomy were randomly assigned to two groups. The patients in Group R were received 0.75% ropivacaine, which was sprayed on the tracheal mucosa, epiglottis, tongue base, and glottis to achieve uniform surface anesthesia. As control, patients in Group C were received the same volume saline. The primiary outcome was the incidence and grade of cough during peri-extubation. Results The incidence (34.62% vs. 76.92%, P  = 0.002) of cough during extubation were lower in Group R compared to Group C. Meanwhile, the sore throat visual acuity score at 12 h after surgery was lower in Group R than that in Group C (2.00 vs. 3.50, P  = 0.040). Conclusion Topical anesthesia with 0.75% ropivacaine before intubation can significantly reduce the incidence of cough during peri-extubation. Meanwhile, it reduced hemodynamic fluctuations and postoperative throat pain without influence patients recovery. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800014412 (date of registration January 2018).

Background and Aims: Anaesthesia for children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ranges from moderate to deep sedation in order to facilitate uninterrupted completion of the scan. While various intravenous and inhalational techniques of anaesthesia have their own merits and demerits, there is a paucity of comparative literature between the two in children undergoing diagnostic MRI. Materials and Methods: This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at the Radiology suite of a 2800-bedded tertiary care hospital, wherein 107 unpremedicated children between the ages of 6 months to 15 years received either sedation with propofol infusion (Group GSP, n = 57) or inhalational anaesthesia with a laryngeal mask airway (Group GAL, n = 50). Primary outcome measures included time to induction and time to recovery. Secondary outcomes comprised the incidence of respiratory and non-respiratory adverse events in the two groups. Results: The median time to induction was significantly shorter in GSP than GAL [7.00 (IQR 5.0, 10.0) versus 10.00 minutes (IQR 8.8, 13.0), P < 0.001]; the incidence of desaturation [8 (16.0%) in GAL, 1 (1.8%) in GSP, P = 0.012], laryngospasm [11 (22.4%) in GAL, 1 (1.8%) in GSP, P = 0.001] and emergence delirium (5 (10%) in GAL, 0 in GSP, P = 0.047) were significantly greater in the GAL group. There was no difference in the time to emergence, nausea and vomiting or bradycardia between the two groups. Conclusion: Sedation with propofol infusion during paediatric MRI scan offers a short turnover time and favourable adverse event profile when compared to inhalational anaesthesia with an LMA.

The quality of recovery (QoR) of remimazolam-based and propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia was compared as measured by QoR-15 scores. A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial. An operating room, a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and a hospital ward. Female patients (n = 140; 20–65 years) scheduled for open thyroidectomy were enrolled and randomly assigned to the remimazolam or propofol group. The remimazolam group received continuous remimazolam infusions and effect-site target-controlled remifentanil infusions. The propofol group received effect-site target-controlled infusions of propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome was QoR-15 on postoperative day 1 (POD1). The mean difference between the groups was compared against a non-inferiority margin of −8. Secondary outcomes were QoR-15 on POD2, hemodynamic data, time to lose and recover consciousness, sedation score upon PACU admission, pain, and postoperative nausea and vomiting profiles at the PACU and ward. Group-time interaction effects in hemodynamic data and QoR-15 were analyzed using a linear mixed model. The total QoR-15 score on POD1 in the remimazolam group was non-inferior to that in the propofol group (mean [SD] 111.2 [18.8] vs. 109.1 [18.9]; mean difference [95% CI] 2.1 [−4.2, 8.5]; p = 0.002 for non-inferiority). The QoR-15 score on POD2 was comparable between the groups, and no group-time interaction was observed. At the end of anesthesia, after extubation, and upon arrival at the PACU, mean arterial pressure was significantly higher in the remimazolam group. Remimazolam group was more sedated at the time of admission to PACU. Pain intensity and the requirement for analgesics were lower in the remimazolam group than in the propofol group. Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia provided a similar QoR to propofol. Remimazolam and propofol can be used interchangeably for general anesthesia in female patients undergoing thyroid surgery. •Evidence regarding quality of recovery after remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia has been limited.•Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia was explored in female patients undergoing open thyroidectomy.•Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia demonstrated similar quality of recovery to propofol.•Hypotensive incidence at cessation of anesthetics was lower in patients administered with remimazolam compared to propofol.•Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia was associated with reduced pain intensity and analgesic requirement.

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is becoming increasingly common, yet its effects on early postoperative recovery remain unclear. Our study assessed the effect of OFA on postoperative recovery compared to opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, BIOSIS, and Web of Science concluding on December 19, 2024, for randomized controlled trials comparing OFA and OBA in adults (≥ 18 years). Data were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration). The primary outcome was recovery quality at postoperative 24 hours. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Evidence certainty was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Our meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42024621490). Sixteen trials with a total of 1,968 patients were included in our meta-analysis. OFA was statistically significance associatedwith an improved Quality of Recovery (QoR)-40 score (mean difference 6.33; 95% CI, 3.48-9.17; very low certainty) and QoR-15 score at postoperative 24 hours (mean difference 10; 95% CI, 2.25-17.74; low certainty) compared to OBA. OFA was a statistical significance associated with a reduced risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as a shorter stay in the postanesthesia care unit. OFA did not reduce postoperative pain and extubation time. Our meta-analysis has high heterogeneity, with a predominance of women and middle-aged populations in the included studies. Additionally, side effects related to OFA were not analyzed. Our systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that it is uncertain whether OFA is superior to OBA in improving postoperative recovery quality. However, OFA leads to a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The evidence was primarily drawn from small trials involving elective surgeries. While our results support using OFA, larger and high-quality studies are needed to validate its effect on postoperative recovery quality.

Understanding how the brain recovers from unconsciousness can inform neurobiological theories of consciousness and guide clinical investigation. To address this question, we conducted a multicenter study of 60 healthy humans, half of whom received general anesthesia for 3 hr and half of whom served as awake controls. We administered a battery of neurocognitive tests and recorded electroencephalography to assess cortical dynamics. We hypothesized that recovery of consciousness and cognition is an extended process, with differential recovery of cognitive functions that would commence with return of responsiveness and end with return of executive function, mediated by prefrontal cortex. We found that, just prior to the recovery of consciousness, frontal-parietal dynamics returned to baseline. Consistent with our hypothesis, cognitive reconstitution after anesthesia evolved over time. Contrary to our hypothesis, executive function returned first. Early engagement of prefrontal cortex in recovery of consciousness and cognition is consistent with global neuronal workspace theory. Anesthesia is a state of reversable, controlled unconsciousness. It has enabled countless medical procedures. But it also serves as a tool for scientists to study how the brain regains consciousness after disruptions such as sleep, coma or medical procedures requiring general anesthesia. It is still unclear how exactly the brain regains consciousness, and less so, why some patients do not recover normally after general anesthesia or fail to recover from brain injury. To find out more, Mashour et al. studied the patterns of reemerging consciousness and cognitive function in 30 healthy adults who underwent general anesthesia for three hours. While the volunteers were under anesthesia, their brain activity was measured with an EEG; and their sleep-wake activity was measured before and after the experiment. Each participant took part in a series of cognitive tests designed to measure the reaction speed, memory and other functions before receiving anesthesia, right after the return of consciousness, and then every 30 minutes thereafter. Thirty healthy volunteers who did not have anesthesia also completed the scans and tests as a comparison group. The experiments showed that certain normal EEG patterns resumed just before a person wakes up from anesthesia. The return of thinking abilities was an extended, multistep process, but volunteers recovered their cognitive abilities to nearly the same level as the volunteers within three hours of being deeply anesthetized. Mashour et al. also unexpectedly found that abstract problem-solving resumes early in the process, while other functions such as reaction time and attention took longer to recover. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Sleep leaves individuals vulnerable. Quick evaluation and decision-making skills would be key to respond to a threat upon waking. The experiments confirm that the front of the brain, which handles thinking and decision-making, was especially active around the time of recovery. This suggests that therapies targeting this part of the brain may help people who experience loss of consciousness after a brain injury or have difficulties waking up after anesthesia. Moreover, disorders of cognition, such as delirium, in the days following surgery may be caused by factors other than the lingering effects of anesthetic drugs on the brain.

The emergence profiles in patients undergoing total intravenous anesthesia with either propofol or remimazolam with flumazenil reversal were compared. A prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. An operating room and a post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Adult patients (n = 100) having American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status of I-III undergoing general anesthesia were enrolled and randomly assigned to the propofol or the remimazolam group. The propofol group received target-controlled infusion of propofol, and the remimazolam group received continuous infusion of remimazolam. Continuous infusion of remifentanil was used in both groups. For emergence, flumazenil was used in increments of 0.2 mg in the remimazolam group. The primary outcome was the time required for the patient to obey verbal commands. The secondary outcomes included the time to bispectral index (BIS) over 80, the time to laryngeal mask airway (LMA) removal, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the PACU, and adverse events throughout the study period. The time taken to obey verbal commands was significantly longer in the propofol group than the remimazolam group (14 [9, 19]) vs. 5 [3, 7]) minutes, P < 0.001; median difference -9, 95% confidence interval -11 to -6). The times to BIS over 80 and to LMA removal were also significantly longer in the propofol group. In addition, the RASS score upon arrival to the PACU differed significantly between the two groups (P = 0.006). Re-sedation in the PACU was observed in 11 (22%) of the patients in the remimazolam group. Remimazolam-based total intravenous anesthesia with flumazenil reversal may be effective in reducing emergence time, but a significant incidence of re-sedation was observed in the PACU. Further studies are needed to determine adequate dose and timing of routine flumazenil use and minimize the risk of re-sedation. •Remimazolam is a novel ‘ultra-short-acting’ benzodiazepine.•Remimazolam has a short history of use in total intravenous anesthesia.•Remimazolam's effect can be reversed by flumazenil.•Propofol has no specific antagonist.•Remimazolam can provide accelerated emergence after continuous infusion.

Background Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety. Methods A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. Discussion Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments. Trial registration ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.

The QoR-15 scale is a validated tool to assess the quality of postoperative recovery (QoR). Our objective was to assess the association between the early QoR-15 values and the occurrence of one-month postoperative complications. We used the data from a prospective single-centre cohort study conducted in the Angers University Hospital from July 2019 to February 2020 that validated the French version of the QoR-15 (FQoR-15). Preoperative room, ward, and home. 363 French-speaking adult patients, undergoing elective surgery, were enrolled (217 (59,8%) men, median age 60 (range 44 to 71) years old), including 139 (38.3%) ambulatory surgeries. Patients completed the QoR-15 scale the day before, at 24 and 48 h after surgery. Postoperative complications were recorded according to the PostOperative Morbidity Survey (POMS) classification till 30 days after surgery. The QoR was classified as excellent (QoR-15 > 135), good (122 ≤ QoR-15 ≤ 135), moderate (90 ≤ QoR-15 ≤ 121) or poor (QoR-15 < 90). Days alive and out of hospital up to 30 days after surgery was also recorded. According to the POMS classification, 176 (48.5%) patients had at least one complication up to 30 days after surgery. Among the 69 (19.0%) patients with a poor recovery at H24, 58 (84.1%) had at least one complication up to 30 days after surgery compared to 10 (23.8%) among the 42 (11.6%) in the excellent recovery group (p < 0.0001). The QoR-15 score at H24 allowed suitable discrimination of the occurrence of at least one complication up to 30 days after surgery (AUC 0.732 (95% CI 0.680 to 0.784)). The early QoR-15 scale after surgery is moderately associated with the occurrence of postoperative complications up to 30 days after elective surgeries (i.e. it has predictive validity). •Postoperative complications are common and affect the patient's recovery•Early identification of patients at risk of postoperative complications can enable clinicians to optimize care•QoR-15 is a validated tool to assess the quality of postoperative recovery•176 (48,5%) patients had at least one postoperative complication at 30 days•Early postoperative QoR-15 score is moderately associated with late postoperative complications

This study aimed to investigate the effect of liposomal bupivacaine in transversus abdominis plane block (TAP) on recovery quality after cesarean delivery. A randomized trial. An operating room, a post-anesthesia care unit, and a hospital ward. A total of 147 women scheduled for cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were enrolled and randomized to receive a TAP block with plain bupivacaine (bupivacaine group), liposomal bupivacaine (liposomal group), or a mixture of plain bupivacaine and liposomal bupivacaine (mixture group). The bupivacaine group received bilateral TAP blocks with plain bupivacaine 50 mg alone. The liposomal group received bilateral TAP blocks with liposomal bupivacaine 266 mg alone. The mixture group received bilateral TAP blocks with plain bupivacaine 50 mg followed by liposomal bupivacaine 266 mg. The primary outcome was the Quality of Recovery−15 (QoR − 15) score assessed 24 h postoperatively. Secondary outcomes encompassed the QoR − 15 score at 48 h post-surgery, the VAS pain score at rest and with movement at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively, opioid consumption within the 0–24 h and 24–48 h periods following surgery, as well as patient's satisfaction with analgesic. The QoR − 15 score at 24 h postoperatively was significantly higher in both the liposomal group and the mixture group compared to the bupivacaine group. Specifically, the QoR − 15 score for the liposomal group versus the bupivacaine group (median [IQR]: 120 [107, 128] vs. 109 [104, 120]; median difference, 7; 95 % CI, 2 to 13; P = 0.011) and for the mixture group versus the bupivacaine group (median [IQR]: 122 [112, 128] vs. 109 [104, 120]; median difference, 9; 95 % CI, 4 to 14; P = 0.001). The QoR − 15 score in both the liposomal group and the mixture group were also higher than those in the bupivacaine group at 48 h postoperatively, though the difference was not clinically meaningful. Additionally, both the liposomal and mixture groups exhibited lower pain score at 24 h and 48 h postoperatively compared to the bupivacaine group, but no significant clinical differences were achieved in either pain scores or opioid consumption. Patients in both the liposomal and mixture groups reported higher satisfaction score with analgesia than those in the bupivacaine group. TAP block using either liposomal bupivacaine or a mixture of plain bupivacaine and liposomal bupivacaine provided superior quality of recovery at 24 h after cesarean delivery compared to using plain bupivacaine alone. •The efficacy of TAP blocks using liposomal bupivacaine for cesarean deliveries remains uncertain.•Recovery quality at 24 h was superior with TAP blocks with LB alone and mixed with plain bupivacaine than plain bupivacaine.•No significant clinical differences were observed in quality of recovery, pain score, or opioid consumption at 48 h.

Quality of recovery (QoR) is an important concept in the perioperative care of a patient. Assessment of QoR has prognostic and economic importance, with clinical and research applications and improves patient satisfaction in the perioperative period. It, therefore, behooves the perioperative clinician to have a good understanding of the concept of QoR to better manage the perioperative patient. This literature review will discuss the concept of QoR, the development thereof, and explore the different assessments of QoR. Special attention is paid to the Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) and the Quality of Recovery 15 (QoR-15) assessment tools, with further attention to development, composition, validation, and subsequent usage of the QoR-15. Furthermore, factors that have been found to influence QoR and the importance of measuring QoR will be discussed. •Quality of recovery is a multidimensional patient reported outcome.•The QoR-15 has undergone extensive psychometric validation and systematic review.•Measurement of quality of recovery has prognostic and economic importance.•QoR is an important concept to which the perioperative physician should be well orientated.