Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication, that can reduce patient satisfaction and may lead to serious consequences, such as wound dehiscence. Many strategies have been proposed to prevent PONV; however, it remains common, especially in high-risk surgeries such as gynecological surgery. In recent years, opioid-free anesthesia has been widely studied because it minimizes adverse reactions of opioids, such as nausea, vomiting, and itching; however, conclusions have been inconsistent. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the effects of opioid-free anesthesia on PONV in patients undergoing gynecological surgery. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to 28 August 2023, was performed. Keywords and other free terms were used with Boolean operators (OR and, AND) to combine searches. This review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: Six studies involving 514 patients who underwent gynecological surgery were included. The forest plot revealed that the incidence of PONV (risk ratio = 0.52; p < 0.00001) and consumption of postoperative antiemetics use (risk ratio = 0.64; p = 0.03) were significantly lower in the opioid-free anesthesia group. In addition, opioid-free anesthesia improved the quality of recovery (mean difference = 4.69; p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative pain scores (mean difference = 0.05; p = 0.85), analgesic use (risk ratio = 1.09; p = 0.65), and the time of extubation (mean difference = -0.89; p = 0.09) between the opioid-free anesthesia and control groups. Conclusion: OFA reduces PONV and the use of antiemetic drugs. In addition, it improves the quality of postoperative recovery. However, OFA can not reduce the postoperative pain scores, analgesic use and the time of extubation. Due to the strength of the evidence, we cannot support OFA as an ideal anesthesia method in gynecological surgery, and the implementation of anesthesia strategies should be case-by-case. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=462044], identifier [CRD42023462044].

BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular block is associated with increased patient morbidity. Therefore prevention of residual neuromuscular block is an important component of general anaesthesia where neuromuscular blocking agents are used. Whereas sugammadex improves reversal based on neuromuscular twitch monitoring parameters, there have been no prospective, adequately powered definitive studies demonstrating that sugammadex is also associated with less patient morbidity.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomised trials comparing sugammadex with anticholinesterase-based reversal or placebo reversal that reported important patient outcomes beyond the postanaesthesia care unit.
RESULTS: We identified 43 articles, including 5839 trial participants. Only one trial reported days alive and out of hospital to 30 days (DAOH-30), which showed that the number of DAOH-30 was similar in those allocated to sugammadex compared with neostigmine-based reversal (25 days [19-27] vs 24 days [21-27], median difference 0.00 [-2.15 to 2.15]). Pooled analyses of data from 16 trials showed an estimated odds ratio (OR) for postoperative pulmonary complications of 0.67 (95% confidence interval 0.47-0.95) with sugammadex use. Pooled analysis showed that pneumonia (eight trials OR 0.51 [0.24-1.01] with sugammadex use), hospital length of stay (23 trials, mean difference -0.31 [-0.84 to 0.22] with sugammadex use), and patient-reported quality of recovery (11 trials, varied depending on metric used) are similar in those allocated to sugammadex vs control. The difference seen in mortality (11 trials, OR 0.39 [0.15-1.01] with sugammadex use) would be considered to be clinically significant and warrants further investigation, however, the rarity of these events precludes drawing definitive conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: Although few trials reported on DAOH-30 or important patient outcomes, sugammadex is associated with a reduction in postoperative pulmonary complications, however, this might not translate to a difference in hospital length of stay, patient-reported quality of recovery, or mortality.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO database (CRD42022325858).

UNASSIGNED: Patients undergoing hysterectomy by open or laparoscopic approach experience moderate to severe postoperative pain. A multimodal analgesic approach is recommended for these patients. This study reviews the analgesic efficacy of duloxetine, a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor used as an adjuvant for opioid-sparing postoperative analgesia.
UNASSIGNED: After registering the protocol in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), databases like PubMed, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomised controlled trials using relevant keywords to find studies in which duloxetine premedication was compared to a placebo in patients undergoing hysterectomy. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of evidence.
UNASSIGNED: The qualitative systematic review included five of the 88 studies identified. The overall risk of bias in the included studies was very high. In all the studies, 60 mg oral duloxetine was used, and the control group was placebo. In two studies, duloxetine premedication was administered 2 h before and 24 h after surgery. In the other three studies, a single dose of 60 mg duloxetine was only administered 2 h before surgery. A pooled meta-analysis was not performed due to fewer studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria and even fewer studies with consistent reporting of various outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: The evidence is insufficient to advocate routine duloxetine premedication in patients undergoing hysterectomy.

Traditional risk factors used for predicting poor postoperative recovery have focused on postoperative complications, adverse symptoms (nausea, pain), length of hospital stay, and patient quality of life. Despite these being traditional performance indicators of patient postoperative \"status,\" they may not fully define the multidimensional nature of patient recovery. The definition of postoperative recovery is thus evolving to include patient-reported outcomes that are important to the patient. Previous reviews have focused on risk factors for the above traditional outcomes after major surgery. Yet, there remains a need for further study of risk factors predicting multidimensional patient-focused recovery, and investigation beyond the immediate postoperative period after patients are discharged from the hospital. This review aimed to appraise the current literature identifying risk factors for multidimensional patient recovery.
METHODS: A systematic review without meta-analysis was performed to qualitatively summarize preoperative risk factors for multidimensional recovery 4-6 weeks after major surgery (PROSPERO, CRD42022321626). We reviewed three electronic databases between January 2012 and April 2022. The primary outcome was risk factors for multidimensional recovery at 4-6 weeks. A GRADE quality appraisal and a risk of bias assessment were completed.
RESULTS: In total, 5150 studies were identified, after which 1506 duplicates were removed. After the primary and secondary screening, nine articles were included in the final review. Interrater agreements between the two assessors for the primary and secondary screening process were 86% (k = 0.47) and 94% (k = 0.70), respectively. Factors associated with poor recovery were found to include ASA grade, recovery tool baseline score, physical function, number of co-morbidities, previous surgery, and psychological well-being. Mixed results were reported for age, BMI, and preoperative pain. Due to the observational nature, heterogeneity, multiple definitions of recovery, and moderate risk of bias of the primary studies, the quality of evidence was rated from very low to low.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review found that there were few studies assessing preoperative risk factors as predictors for poor postoperative multidimensional recovery. This confirms the need for higher quality studies assessing risk for poor recovery, ideally with a consistent and multi-dimensional definition of recovery.

UNASSIGNED: Minimally invasive procedures have been developed to reduce surgical trauma after cardiac surgery. Clinical recovery is the main focus of most research. Still, patient-centred outcomes, such as the quality of life, can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of the surgery on the patient\'s life. This systematic review aims to deliver a detailed summary of all available research investigating the quality of recovery, assessed with quality of life instruments, in adults undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery.
UNASSIGNED: All randomised trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies assessing the quality of recovery in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery compared to conventional cardiac surgery within the last 20 years were included, and a summary was prepared.
UNASSIGNED: The randomised trial observed an overall improved quality of life after both minimally invasive and conventional surgery. The quality of life improvement in the minimally invasive group showed a faster course and evolved to a higher level than the conventional surgery group. These findings align with the results of prospective cohort studies. In the cross-sectional studies, no significant difference in the quality of life was seen except for one that observed a significantly higher quality of life in the minimally invasive group.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review indicates that patients may benefit from minimally invasive and conventional cardiac surgery, but patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery may recover sooner and to a greater extent. However, no firm conclusion could be drawn due to the limited available studies. Therefore, randomised controlled trials are needed.

Regional anesthesia can be effective for managing pain after thoracic surgery. This study evaluated whether it can also improve patient-reported quality of recovery (QoR) after such surgery.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Postoperative care.
Perioperative regional anesthesia.
Adults undergoing thoracic surgery.
The primary outcome was total QoR scores 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, pain scores, pulmonary function, respiratory complications, and other adverse effects. Eight studies were identified, of which 6 involving 532 patients receiving video-assisted thoracic surgery were included in the quantitative analysis of QoR. Regional anesthesia significantly improved QoR-40 score (mean difference 9.48; 95% CI 3.53-15.44; I2 = 89%; 4 trials involving 296 patients) and QoR-15 score (mean difference 6.7; 95% CI 2.58-10.82; I2 = 0%; 2 trials involving 236 patients). Regional anesthesia also significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption and the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Insufficient data were available to meta-analyze the effects of regional anesthesia on postoperative pulmonary function or respiratory complications.
The available evidence suggests that regional anesthesia can enhance QoR after video-assisted thoracic surgery. Future studies should confirm and extend these findings.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the impact of peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) on patient-reported quality of recovery (QoR) following breast cancer surgery.
Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google scholar databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the QoR with or without PNBs in patients receiving breast cancer surgery from inception to September 2021. Using a random effects model, the primary outcome was total scores of postoperative QoR scales (i.e., QoR-15 and QoR-40).
Eight RCTs (QoR-15, n = 4; QoR-40, n = 4) involving 653 patients published from 2018 to 2021 were included. For the QoR-40 scale, pooled results revealed a significantly higher total score (mean difference [MD], 12.8 [8.2%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.6 to 14.9; I2 = 59%; five RCTs; n = 251) and scores on all subscales, except psychological support, in the PNB group than in controls at 24 hr after surgery. For the QoR-15 scale, pooled results also showed favorable QoR (MD, 7.7 [5.2%]; 95% CI, 4.9 to 10.5; I2 = 75%; four RCTs; n = 402) in the PNB group at 24 hr after surgery. Sensitivity analysis showed no effect on the QoR-40 score and the difference in total QoR-15 score was no longer significant when a single trial was omitted. The use of PNBs was associated with a significantly lower opioid consumption and risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting without significant differences in the pain score between the two groups.
Our results verified the efficacy of PNBs for enhancing postoperative QoR using two validated patient-reported tools in female patients receiving breast cancer surgery under general anesthesia.
PROSPERO (CRD42021272575); first submitted 9 August 2021.
RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Cette revue systématique et méta-analyse a étudié l’impact des blocs nerveux périphériques (BNP) sur la qualité de récupération (QoR) rapportée par les patientes après une chirurgie du cancer du sein.
METHODS: Les bases de données Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library et Google Scholar ont été analysées pour en tirer les études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant la QoR avec ou sans BNP chez les patientes bénéficiant d’une chirurgie de cancer du sein, de leur création jusqu’en septembre 2021. À l’aide d’un modèle à effets aléatoires, le critère d’évaluation principal était les scores totaux sur les échelles de QoR postopératoire (c.-à-d. QoR-15 et QoR-40).
UNASSIGNED: Huit ERC (QoR-15, n = 4; QoR-40, n = 4) impliquant 653 patientes publiées de 2018 à 2021 ont été incluses. Pour l’échelle QoR-40, les résultats regroupés ont révélé un score total (différence moyenne [DM], 12,8 [8,2 %]; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 10,6 à 14,9; I2 = 59 %; cinq ECR; n = 251) et des scores sur toutes les sous-échelles significativement plus élevés, à l’exception du soutien psychologique, dans le groupe BNP que dans le groupe témoin 24 heures après la chirurgie. Pour l’échelle QoR-15, les résultats groupés ont également montré un QoR favorable (DM, 7,7 [5,2 %]; IC 95 %, 4,9 à 10,5; I2 = 75 %; quatre ECR; n = 402) dans le groupe BNP 24 heures après la chirurgie. L’analyse de sensibilité n’a montré aucun effet sur le score de QoR-40 et la différence dans le score total de QoR-15 n’était plus significative lorsqu’une seule étude était omise. L’utilisation de BNP a été associée à une consommation d’opioïdes significativement plus faible et à un risque de nausées et vomissements postopératoires sans différences significatives dans le score de douleur entre les deux groupes.
CONCLUSIONS: Nos résultats ont confirmé l’efficacité des BNP pour améliorer la QoR postopératoire à l’aide de deux outils validés rapportés par les patientes recevant une chirurgie du cancer du sein sous anesthésie générale. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42021272575); soumis pour la première fois le 9 août 2021.

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.

Lower limb arthroplasty is an effective surgical treatment option for patients with moderate to severe arthritis who have not responded to medical management. However, surgical interventions can lead to postoperative consequences such as limited mobility, pain, and infection. Consequently, improving postoperative recovery holds significant benefits for patients, health care professionals, and health care payers. The purpose of this review is to determine if any recovery tools exist that can effectively measure early postoperative recovery after hip or knee arthroplasty.
The following databases were searched; PubMed (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cochrane library, and SCOPUS. We restricted our search to English language articles and adult respondents. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a proforma spreadsheet, and existing quality criteria were applied.
Our literature search identified 23 articles relating to development, assessment, and validation of 15 tools. Not all instruments demonstrated the same levels of quality. None of the tools found were specific to both the orthopedic arthroplasty population and early recovery periods.
At the present time, there are no fully validated tools to assess early postoperative recovery during the first week following lower limb arthroplasty. A brief, easy-to-complete, reliable patient-reported tool could be of great use. It could not only aid in assessment of recovery but could also evaluate the efficacy of perioperative interventions such as drugs or surgical technique and provide a foundation for evidence-based care.