No abstract

Background Postoperative pain control can be challenging in patients undergoing hepatectomy. A previous retrospective study on hepatobiliary/ pancreatic surgeries showed better postoperative pain control in patients who received propofol TIVA. The aim of this study was to determine the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA for hepatectomy. This clinical study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03597997). Methods A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed to compare the analgesic effect of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia. Patients aged between 18 and 80 years old with an American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status of I-III scheduled for elective hepatectomy were recruited. Ninety patients were randomly allocated to receive either propofol TIVA (TIVA group) or inhalational anaesthesia with sevoflurane (SEVO group). Perioperative anaesthetic/analgesic management was the same for both groups. Numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores, postoperative morphine consumption, quality of recovery, patient satisfaction and adverse effects were evaluated during the acute postoperative period and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Results No significant differences were found for acute postoperative pain scores (both at rest and during coughing) and postoperative morphine consumption between TIVA and SEVO groups. Patients given TIVA had lower pain scores with coughing at 3 months after surgery (p = 0.014, and FDR < 0.1). TIVA group was associated with better quality of recovery on postoperative day (POD) 3 (p = 0.038, and FDR < 0.1), less nausea (p = 0.011, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 2; p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3) and constipation (p = 0.013, and FDR < 0.1 on POD 3). Conclusion Propofol TIVA did not improve acute postoperative pain control compared to inhalational anaesthesia in patients who underwent hepatectomy. Our results do not support the use of propofol TIVA for reducing acute postoperative pain after hepatectomy.

Background:Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost-effective procedure, but it is also associated with substantial postoperative pain. The present study aimed to compare pain relief and functional recovery after TKA among groups that received intravenous corticosteroids, periarticular corticosteroids, or a combination of both.Methods:This randomized, double-blinded clinical trial in a local institution in Hong Kong recruited 178 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA. Six of these patients were excluded because of changes in surgical technique; 4, because of their hepatitis B status; 2, because of a history of peptic ulcer; and 2, because they declined to participate in the study. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo (P), intravenous corticosteroids (IVS), periarticular corticosteroids (PAS), or a combination of intravenous and periarticular corticosteroids (IVSPAS).Results:The pain scores at rest were significantly lower in the IVSPAS group than in the P group over the first 48 hours (p = 0.034) and 72 hours (p = 0.043) postoperatively. The pain scores during movement were also significantly lower in the IVS and IVSPAS groups than in the P group over the first 24, 48, and 72 hours (p ≤ 0.023 for all). The flexion range of the operatively treated knee was significantly better in the IVSPAS group than in the P group on postoperative day 3 (p = 0.027). Quadriceps power was also greater in the IVSPAS group than in the P group on postoperative days 2 (p = 0.005) and 3 (p = 0.007). Patients in the IVSPAS group were able to walk significantly further than patients in the P group in the first 3 postoperative days (p ≤ 0.003). Patients in the IVSPAS group also had a higher score on the Elderly Mobility Scale than those in the P group (p = 0.036).Conclusions:IVS and IVSPAS yielded similar pain relief, but IVSPAS yielded a larger number of rehabilitation parameters that were significantly better than those in the P group. This study provides new insights into pain management and postoperative rehabilitation following TKA.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.