Effect of propofol and sevoflurane on postoperative fatigue after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative fatigue syndrome (POFS) is an important factor in postoperative recovery. However, the effect of anesthetic drugs on postoperative fatigue in female patients has been rarely studied. This study compared the effects of maintaining general anesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane on the incidence of POFS in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. METHODS: This prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for laparoscopic hysterectomy. Eligible patients were randomized into the propofol and sevoflurane groups. The primary outcome was the incidence of POFS within 30 Days, defined by a simplified identity consequence fatigue scale (ICFS-10) scores≥24 or Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores of fatigues>6. Secondary outcomes were perioperative grip strength, early ambulation and anal exhaust after surgery, and inpatient days. RESULTS: 32 participants were assigned to the propofol group (P) and 33 to the sevoflurane group (S). Incidence of POFS on postoperative D1 was P (8/32) vs. S (10/33) (p = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.4-27.00); D3 P (2/32) vs. S (5/33) (p = 0.45,95% CI:5.96-23.76). POFS were not found on postoperative D5 and D30. There were no differences in perioperative grip strength, early ambulation and anal exhaust after surgery, and inpatient days between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: POFS after scheduled laparoscopic hysterectomy was unaffected by anesthesia with propofol vs. sevoflurane. The incidence of POFS was highest on the first postoperative day, at 27.7%, and declined progressively over the postoperative 30 days. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR 2,000,033,861), registered on 14/06/2020).

Effects of Propofol on Perioperative Sleep Quality in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Some patients experience sleep disturbances after endoscopy performed under sedation. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of propofol on sleep quality after gastrointestinal endoscopy (GE). DESIGN: This study was a prospective cohort study. METHODS: This study enrolled 880 patients who underwent GE. Patients who chose to undergo GE under sedation received intravenous propofol, whereas the control group did not. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was measured before GE (PSQI-1) and 3 weeks (PSQI-2) after GE. The Groningen Sleep Score Scale (GSQS) was used before GE (GSQS-1) and 1 (GSQS-2) and 7 days (GSQS-3) after GE. FINDINGS: There was a significant increase in GSQS scores from baseline to days 1 and 7 after GE (GSQS-2 vs GSQS-1, P < .001, GSQS-3 vs GSQS-1, P = .008). However, no significant changes were observed in the control group (GSQS-2 vs GSQS-1, P = .38, GSQS-3 vs GSQS-1, P = .66). On day 21, there were no significant changes in the baseline PSQI scores over time in either group (sedation group, P = .96; control group, P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: GE with propofol sedation negatively affected sleep quality for 7 days after GE but not 3 weeks after GE.

Effects of lidocaine administration via the perforated outer cuff of a dual-cuff endotracheal tube and remifentanil administration on recovery from general anaesthesia for female patients undergoing thyroidectomy: a single centre, double-blind, randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Cough caused by endotracheal tube (ETT) placement is ubiquitous and correlates with adverse outcomes. Remifentanil administration via target-controlled infusion (TCI) is one of the cough prevention measures used during recovery. In a pilot study, lidocaine administered via the perforated outer cuff of a dual-cuff endotracheal tube was also found to prevent cough due to ETT placement. We therefore compared these two cough prevention approaches during recovery after thyroidectomy in a single-centre, double-blind, randomised study conducted in China during the period from 09/10/2020 to 30/04/2021. METHODS: Ninety-eight female patients aged 18-65 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status scores of I and II were scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy. The ETT contained an internal cuff covered by a perforated outer cuff to allow for lidocaine delivery. Patients were randomised to receive either 4 ml of saline solution (Group R, n = 49) or 4 ml of 2% lidocaine in the outer cuff (Group L, n = 49) at the beginning of skin suturing. Remifentanil (2 ng/ml) was maintained in Group R until extubation, while remifentanil was maintained in Group L until the end of skin suturing. The primary outcome was cough during patient transfer, at 1 min before extubation, and at extubation. The secondary outcomes were haemodynamics and other recovery parameters. RESULTS: Primary outcomes were compared between remifentanil vs. lidocaine application, namely, the incidence of cough during patient transfer (0% in Group R vs. 0% in Group L), at 1 min before extubation (22.45% in Group R vs. 4.08% in Group L; P = 0.015), and at extubation (61.22% in Group R vs. 20.41% in Group L; P < 0.001). Compared with remifentanil, lidocaine more effectively decreased heart rate elevation and hypoxemia at 5 min after extubation, the spontaneous respiration recovery time, the extubation time, the duration of post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores in the agitated range and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores. CONCLUSION: Lidocaine administered via the perforated outer cuff of the ETT significantly improved recovery from general anaesthesia compared to remifentanil in female patients after thyroidectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000038653), registered on 27/09/2020.