Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Peng, Ke MS; Liu, Hua-Yue MS; Wu, Shao-Ru MS; Liu, Hong MD; Zhang, Zhao-Cai MD; Ji, Fu-Hai MD

doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001504
Anesthetic Pharmacology: Meta-Analysis
Free
SDC

BACKGROUND: Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.

METHODS: A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.

RESULTS: Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, −0.48 [visual analog scale, 0–10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], −1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, −2.68 mg; 99% CI, −6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74–1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02–12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of California Davis Health System, Sacramento, California; and Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China.

Accepted for publication June 19, 2016.

Funding: Supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants 81471835 to F.-H.J. and 81471889 to Z.-C.Z.).

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Reprints will not be available from the authors.

Address correspondence to Fu-Hai Ji, MD, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, No.188 Shizi St, Suzhou 215006, Jiangsu Province, China. Address e-mail to jifuhaisuda@163.com.

Inadequate management of acute postoperative pain is associated with a longer hospital stay and increased health care costs.1 Despite the increasing use of minimally invasive surgery and advances in pain therapy, postoperative pain management often is challenging.1 Any approach that reduces opioid requirements and also produces earlier ambulation could be of benefit to patients and society.

In some studies, propofol-based anesthesia has been shown to be associated with reduced postoperative pain compared with that associated with volatile agent–based anesthesia,2–4 whereas other studies found no evidence of the superiority of propofol.5,6 Most previous studies were not designed to detect differences in postoperative opioid consumption or did not include pain intensity as a primary outcome.

To date, no quantitative literature analysis has been published focusing on their postoperative analgesic effects. In this systematic review, we compared postoperative pain outcomes associated with the use of propofol-based and volatile agent–based anesthesia.

Back to Top | Article Outline

METHODS

This systematic review adheres with the current recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.7

Back to Top | Article Outline

Systematic Literature Search

Three authors (K.P., H.-Y.L., and S.-R.W.) independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases using the following search terms: (1) (balanced OR volatile OR inhalation* OR halothane OR desflurane OR isoflurane OR sevoflurane) AND propofol AND (analgesi* OR opioid OR pain) AND postoperative for the MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches; and (2) (balanced OR volatile OR inhalation* OR “halothane”/exp OR halothane OR “desflurane”/exp OR desflurane OR “isoflurane”/exp OR isoflurane OR “sevoflurane”/exp OR sevoflurane) AND (“propofol”/exp OR propofol) AND (analgesi* OR opioid OR “pain”/exp OR pain) AND postoperative AND [humans]/lim for the EMBASE search.

The last search was performed in March 2015. No language or publication date restriction was used. Additional studies were retrieved by review of the reference lists from relevant articles. The search results were collated and deduplicated in Endnote X7 (Thomson Reuters, NY).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Selection of Included Studies

Three authors (K.P., H.-Y.L., and S.-R.W.) independently screened the abstracts of articles shortlisted by the initial search. The same authors reviewed the full texts to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Any disagreement over study selection was resolved with a consensus with the other authors (H.L., Z.-C.Z., and F.-H.J).

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were determined before the systematic search. Inclusion criteria were (1) design: randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) population: adult patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia; (3) intervention: comparison of propofol-based intravenous anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia; and (4) outcomes: postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia. Exclusion criteria were (1) procedures performed under sedation only; (2) use of different analgesic regimens (ie, remifentanil in one group and fentanyl in the other, or nitrous oxide in one group but not in the other group); (3) the use of neuraxial or nerve block; (4) pediatric patients; (5) trials that did not report on specific outcomes; and (6) lack of access to full text.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Extraction

Three authors (K.P., H.-Y.L., and S.-R.W.) independently extracted the following data from eligible studies: author details, publication year, number of patients, surgical procedure, premedication, anesthesia induction and maintenance, and intraoperative and postoperative analgesic regimens. Corresponding authors were contacted for missing data when necessary. Any disagreement over data extraction was resolved by discussion and consensus with the other authors (H.L., Z.-C.Z., and F.-H.J.).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Primary and Secondary Outcome Parameters

We designated postoperative pain score as the primary outcome, because it is the most direct data point representing pain intensity. Other data points representing supporting evidence associated with pain were designated as secondary outcomes.

The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity rated on a numeric rating scale (0–10) at rest; and on movement at 8 time points (postoperative 30 minutes, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 hours). Pain intensity scores reported on a visual analog scale (0–10) or numerical analog scale (0–10) were rated as equivalent to a 0 to 10 numeric rating scale.

Secondary outcomes were (1) morphine-equivalent consumption during 0 to 2 hours (or in the postanesthesia care unit [PACU]), 0 to 4 hours, and 0 to 24 hours after surgery; (2) number of patients requiring analgesics during 0 to 2 hours (or in the PACU), 0 to 8 hours, and 0 to 24 hours after surgery; and (3) time to first postoperative analgesic administration.

Postoperative opioid consumption was transformed to morphine-equivalent consumption with the use of previously published equianalgesic conversion factors (morphine 10 mg = piritramide 10 mg = tramadol 100 mg = meperidine 100 mg = fentanyl 0.1 mg, intravenously).8–10

Back to Top | Article Outline

Risk of Bias Assessment

Three authors (K.P., H.-Y.L., and S.-R.W.) independently assessed the risk of bias in each identified study using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool.11 This tool considered 6 different domains: (1) random sequence generation (selection bias); (2) allocation concealment (selection bias); (3) blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias); (4) blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias); (5) incomplete data on outcomes (attrition bias); and (6) selective reporting (reporting bias). The estimated overall risk of bias for each trial was categorized as “low,” “unclear,” or “high.” Any disagreement over assessment of bias was resolved by discussion and consensus with the other authors (H.L., Z.-C.Z., and F.-H.J.).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Standard deviation not stated or graphically represented was estimated as range/4 or interquartile range/1.35 (range = maximum value − minimum value and interquartile range = Q3 − Q1, with Q1 and Q3 representing the first and third quartiles, respectively).12 When standard error or confidence interval (CI) was reported, standard deviation was calculated with the calculator tool in the Review Manager. To increase the robustness of results, data were pooled only if at least 3 trials were included for an outcome.

Considering that the Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups and procedures, or many combinations of groups and procedures with small sample sizes,13 we set the threshold for statistical significance at a conservative level of P value <.01. Continuous outcomes were reported as weighted mean differences (MDs) and 99% CI, whereas categorical outcomes were reported as risk ratios with 99% CI. To assess whether the studies in this meta-analysis were affected by publication bias, a funnel plot using one of the main outcomes as an end point, was constructed.

Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 test. For outcome data with low heterogeneity (I2 ≤ 30%), a fixed-effect model was used; for outcome data with evidence of significant heterogeneity (I2 > 30%), a random-effects model was selected.11,14 Subgroup analyses were performed according to the use of remifentanil for intraoperative analgesia, and the use of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) or opioids combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postoperative analgesia, when there were >8 trials included for an outcome.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

As mentioned previously, 3 authors (K.P., H.-Y.L., and S.-R.W.) independently screened the abstracts, reviewed the full texts, and extracted the relevant data. As a result, they reached agreement for all the steps, without the need for additional discussion with the other authors (H.L., Z.-C.Z., and F.-H.J).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Characteristics of Included Trials

Table 1

Table 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

A total of 4375 potentially eligible publications were retrieved on online literature search, of which 322 studies were screened out after review of abstracts. Of these, only 39 articles, with a combined subject population of 4520 adult patients undergoing both minor and major surgery in different specialties (gynecology, ear-nose-throat surgery, urology, orthopedics, neurosurgery, and gastrointestinal surgery),2–6,15–48 were included eventually in this meta-analysis (Figure 1). The characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1. All studies were RCTs that compared propofol with inhalational anesthesia for at least one of the pain outcomes mentioned in the inclusion criteria. In 19 RCTs, remifentanil was used as intraoperative analgesic,3,6,17,18,21–24,29,30,32,34,37,41,43,44,46–48 whereas fentanyl, alfentanil, or morphine was used in 20 RCTs.2,4,5,15,16,19,20,25–28,31,33,35,36,38–40,42,45 Isoflurane was used in 11 trials,2,16,20,26,28,30,35,36,39,40,45 sevoflurane in 21 trials,3–6,18,19,24,25,27,29,31,32,34,37,38,40–44,46 and desflurane in 12 trials.5,15,17,20–23,33,36,40,47,48 PCA with opioids for postoperative analgesia was used in 7 trials2,5,6,23,43,46,47 and opioids combined with NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia in 19 trials.3–6,15,16,18,25,26,29,32,34,36–41,48

Back to Top | Article Outline

Postoperative Pain Intensity

Twenty-five trials investigated postoperative pain scores (N = 2609).2–6,15,16,20,21,23–25,29,31,34–38,40–43,46,47 The main outcomes of pain intensity at rest at the 8 time points and on movement at 3 time points after surgery are shown in Table 2. Lower pain scores at rest were reported by patients anesthetized with propofol, compared with those receiving volatile agents, at postoperative 30 minutes (Figure 2), 1 hour (Figure 3), and 12 hours (Figure 4). The MD in pain scores decreased from −0.48 (99% CI, −1.07 to 0.12; P = 0.04, I2 = 89%) at postoperative 30 minutes to −0.08 (99% CI, −0.30 to 0.14; P = 0.33, I2 = 43%) at postoperative 24 hours. Most of the pooled analyses, however, were affected by heterogeneity, and all the differences failed to show statistical significance given the P value cutoff <0.01.

Table 2

Table 2

Figure 2

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 4

In Figure 2, subgroup analysis was performed. Intraoperative administration of remifentanil was associated with a greater MD in pain scores and significantly reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes (MD = −0.89; 99% CI, −1.63 to −0.16; P = 0.002), compared with fentanyl- or alfentanil-based intraoperative analgesia (MD, −0.17; 99% CI, −1.00 to 0.66; P = 0.60). Postoperative pain intensity was lower when PCA with opioids was used for postoperative analgesia (MD in pain scores, −0.72; 99% CI, −1.52 to 0.07; P = 0.02) than that achieved with opioids on demand. Compared with postoperative analgesia regimen of opioids only, opioids combined with NSAIDs resulted in a reduced postoperative pain intensity (MD in pain scores, −0.59; 99% CI, −1.34 to 0.15; P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis was also performed (Figure 3). To summarize in brief, all the subgroups reached the same point as those shown in Figure 2, except for opioids alone versus opioids combined with NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Secondary Outcomes

Fourteen trials reported on postoperative opioid consumption (N = 1174; Table 3).2,4–6,22–24,28,33,35,40,43,44,48 Compared with patients anesthetized with volatile agents, morphine-equivalent consumption during 0 to 24 hours after surgery was lower in patients receiving propofol (MD in morphine-equivalent consumption, −2.68 mg; 99% CI, −6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05, I2 = 62%; Figure 5). Morphine-equivalent consumption during 0 to 2 hours (or in PACU) and 0 to 4 hours after surgery was lower in patients treated with propofol, but the difference was also not statistically significant.

Table 3

Table 3

Figure 5

Figure 5

Twenty-six trials reported on the number of patients requiring rescue analgesics after surgery (N = 3236).3,4,15–21,23,25–30,32,34,36,37,39,41,42,44,45,47 Fewer patients required rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours postoperatively when receiving propofol (risk ratio = 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P = 0.04, I2 = 0%; Figure 6).

Figure 6

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 7

Three studies reported on the time to first analgesic administration postoperatively (N = 787).23,27,30 Patients anesthetized with propofol required postoperative analgesia later than those who were anesthetized with volatile agents (MD in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02 to 12.21; P = 0.01; Figure 7).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Risk of Bias in Included Studies

Table 4

Table 4

Figure 8

Figure 8

Risk assessment is summarized in Table 4. All included trials were randomized; 30 trials clearly documented the randomization method, and 35 detailed the methods of blinding. A funnel plot showed a fairly symmetrical shape when pain intensity at rest and at 30 minutes as an end point were used, indicating that there was no substantial publication bias (Figure 8).

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis included 39 RCTs that compared postoperative pain outcomes after propofol-based anesthesia with that after inhalational anesthesia. Use of propofol was associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest and opioid consumption. In addition, fewer patients required rescue analgesics in the propofol group, as evidenced by the longer time to first analgesic administration. None of the differences remain significant, however, when a conservative P value of <.01 was applied.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Effects of Propofol or Volatile Agents on Acute Postoperative Pain

In this meta-analysis, we found lower pain scores and reduced pain intensity at rest (from 0.48 U at 30 minutes to 0.08 U at 24 hours postoperatively) associated with propofol anesthesia compared with inhalational anesthesia. Further, the use of propofol was associated with a lower morphine-equivalent consumption in the first 24 hours after surgery (MD, 2.68 mg), which indicates an opioid-sparing effect. Slightly superior postoperative pain relief with propofol anesthesia is indicated by reduced pain intensity and opioid consumption, a reduction in the use of rescue analgesia, and a longer time to first analgesia after surgery. This meta-analysis demonstrates for the first time the possible superiority of propofol anesthesia over inhalational anesthesia with respect to the analgesic effect, particularly in the early postoperative period. Although most of our results do indicate a benefit of propofol in this regard, it is noteworthy that all the differences are small and statistically nonsignificant if a P value cutoff of <.01 is used. Therefore, these differences may arguably not be clinically significant either.

Several possible mechanisms may help explain the effects of propofol and volatile agents on acute postoperative pain. Volatile agents are known to suppress the propagation of sensory afferent stimuli to the nervous system at anesthetic concentrations.49,50 It is worth noting that inhaled anesthetics tend to cause hyperalgesia at 0.1 minimum alveolar concentrations, which may be responsible for increased pain perception during recovery from anesthesia.51 The increased sensitivity to pain is mediated by modulation of central adrenergic and cholinergic transmission, as well as by 5-HT3 receptor–mediated currents.52,53 In contrast, propofol exhibits short-lasting analgesic properties with a trend toward reduced hyperalgesia and allodynia in healthy volunteers.54 In animal models, propofol suppresses nociception induced by spinal sensitization and decreases the lumbar dorsal horn neuronal responses to noxious stimuli.55,56 In addition, antioxidant and neuroprotective effects of propofol also have been documented.57,58

Back to Top | Article Outline

Opioid-induced Hyperalgesia

Use of opioids is the cornerstone of analgesic therapy for moderate-to-severe pain. Acute and chronic exposure to opioids, however, is associated with the development of hyperalgesia because of involvement of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor in pain facilitating systems.59 Remifentanil, an ultra short–acting opioid, causes opioid-induced hyperalgesia through a cellular mechanism that involves rapid and prolonged up-regulation of NMDA receptor function.60,61 Moreover, propofol directly activates γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors, inhibits NMDA receptors, and modulates calcium influx through the slow calcium–ion channels.62 Finally, maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol has been shown to prevent remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia.43,63

The subgroup analyses revealed better postoperative analgesia with propofol in patients who received concomitant intraoperative remifentanil. These findings suggest a synergistic effect between propofol and remifentanil leading to a more potent NMDA antagonistic effect on opioid-associated hyperalgesia than that observed with volatile agents.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Limitations

There are several limitations of our study. First, when applying a conservative P value of <.01, the main differences between propofol and inhalational anesthesia are small and not statistically significant. The clinical relevance of these results needs to be further investigated. Second, there is difficulty in attributing the analgesic properties of propofol or hyperalgesic effects of sevoflurane, although there is evidence to support both. Complex interaction exists between general anesthetics and opioids in the pain facilitating systems. Third, the opioids used for postoperative pain relief varied between the studies, and the calculation of morphine-equivalents may have introduced a bias. Fourth, a multimodal analgesic approach with local anesthetics, NSAIDS, and opioids could mask any marginal difference that might exist between propofol and volatile agents. Fifth, despite subgroup analyses according to different techniques or analgesia regimens, this meta-analysis was affected by heterogeneity because of varied surgical procedures, different volatile anesthetics studied, various perioperative analgesic regimens used, and different indices used for titration of anesthesia depth; therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. Finally, our study did not evaluate the effects of propofol or volatile agents on the long-term outcomes such as chronic pain. Further studies with adequate power to investigate long-term and short-term pain outcomes after propofol or inhalational anesthesia are required.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis did not demonstrate significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia because of substantial heterogeneity among studies. Large RCTs may be needed to verify whether the choice of anesthetics may contribute to a multimodal pain management and improved patient outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCLOSURES

Name: Ke Peng, MS.

Contribution: This author helped conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

Name: Hua-Yue Liu, MS.

Contribution: This author helped conduct the study and analyze the data.

Name: Shao-Ru Wu, MS.

Contribution: This author helped conduct the study and analyze the data.

Name: Hong Liu, MD.

Contribution: This author helped conduct the study and write the manuscript.

Name: Zhao-Cai Zhang, MD.

Contribution: This author helped conduct the study and write the manuscript.

Name: Fu-Hai Ji, MD.

Contribution: This author helped design the study, conduct the study, analyze the data, and write the manuscript.

This manuscript was handled by: Ken B. Johnson, MD.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Wu CL, Raja SN. Treatment of acute postoperative pain. Lancet. 2011;377:2215–2225.
2. Cheng SS, Yeh J, Flood P. Anesthesia matters: patients anesthetized with propofol have less postoperative pain than those anesthetized with isoflurane. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:264–269.
3. Li M, Mei W, Wang P, et al. Propofol reduces early post-operative pain after gynecological laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56:368–375.
4. Tan T, Bhinder R, Carey M, Briggs L. Day-surgery patients anesthetized with propofol have less postoperative pain than those anesthetized with sevoflurane. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:83–85.
5. Fassoulaki A, Melemeni A, Paraskeva A, Siafaka I, Sarantopoulos C. Postoperative pain and analgesic requirements after anesthesia with sevoflurane, desflurane or propofol. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1715–1719.
6. Pokkinen SM, Yli-Hankala A, Kalliomäki ML. The effects of propofol vs. sevoflurane on post-operative pain and need of opioid. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014;58:980–985.
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
8. Von Korff M, Korff MV, Saunders K, et al. De facto long-term opioid therapy for noncancer pain. Clin J Pain. 2008;24:521–527.
9. Peng K, Liu HY, Wu SR, Cheng H, Ji FH. Effects of combining dexmedetomidine and opioids for postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin J Pain. 2015;31:1097–1104.
10. Döpfmer UR, Schenk MR, Kuscic S, Beck DH, Döpfmer S, Kox WJ. A randomized controlled double-blind trial comparing piritramide and morphine for analgesia after hysterectomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2001;18:389–393.
11. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0: The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available at: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12. Paul JE, Arya A, Hurlburt L, et al. Femoral nerve block improves analgesia outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:1144–1162.
13. Ledolter J, Dexter F. Analysis of interventions influencing or reducing patient waiting while stratifying by surgical procedure. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:950–957.
14. Schnabel A, Meyer-Frießem CH, Reichl SU, Zahn PK, Pogatzki-Zahn EM. Is intraoperative dexmedetomidine a new option for postoperative pain treatment? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pain. 2013;154:1140–1149.
15. Akkurt BC, Temiz M, Inanoglu K, et al. Comparison of recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and gastrointestinal motility with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with desflurane for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2009;70:94–103.
16. Boccara G, Mann C, Pouzeratte Y, Bellavoir A, Rouvier A, Colson P. Improved postoperative analgesia with isoflurane than with propofol anaesthesia. Can J Anaesth. 1998;45:839–842.
17. Braun JP, Walter M, Lein M, et al. Clinical pathway “laparoscopic prostatectomy”. Analysis of anesthesiological procedures in a randomized study [in German]. Anaesthesist. 2005;54:1186–1196.
18. Citerio G, Pesenti A, Latini R, et al; NeuroMorfeo Study Group. A multicentre, randomised, open-label, controlled trial evaluating equivalence of inhalational and intravenous anaesthesia during elective craniotomy. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2012;29:371–379.
19. Falsini S, Girardi G, Melani AM, Novelli GP. Emergence and postoperative course after anesthesia with sevoflurane versus propofol [in Italian]. Minerva Anestesiol. 2000;66:25–32.
20. Fredman B, Zohar E, Philipov A, Olsfanger D, Shalev M, Jedeikin R. The induction, maintenance, and recovery characteristics of spinal versus general anesthesia in elderly patients. J Clin Anesth. 1998;10:623–630.
21. Gokce BM, Ozkose Z, Tuncer B, Pampal K, Arslan D. Hemodynamic effects, recovery profiles, and costs of remifentanil-based anesthesia with propofol or desflurane for septorhinoplasty. Saudi Med J. 2007;28:358–363.
22. Gozdemir M, Sert H, Yilmaz N, Kanbak O, Usta B, Demircioglu RI. Remifentanil-propofol in vertebral disk operations: hemodynamics and recovery versus desflurane-n(2)o inhalation anesthesia. Adv Ther. 2007;24:622–631.
23. Grundmann U, Silomon M, Bach F, et al. Recovery profile and side effects of remifentanil-based anaesthesia with desflurane or propofol for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2001;45:320–632–6.
24. Höcker J, Tonner PH, Böllert P, et al. Propofol/remifentanil vs sevoflurane/remifentanil for long lasting surgical procedures: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2006;61:752–757.
25. Hofer CK, Zollinger A, Büchi S, et al. Patient well-being after general anaesthesia: a prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre trial comparing intravenous and inhalation anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:631–637.
26. Jellish WS, Leonetti JP, Murdoch JR, Fowles S. Propofol-based anesthesia as compared with standard anesthetic techniques for middle ear surgery. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7:292–296.
27. Jellish WS, Lien CA, Fontenot HJ, Hall R. The comparative effects of sevoflurane versus propofol in the induction and maintenance of anesthesia in adult patients. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:479–485.
28. Jensen AG, Kalman SH, Nyström PO, Eintrei C. Anaesthetic technique does not influence postoperative bowel function: a comparison of propofol, nitrous oxide and isoflurane. Can J Anaesth. 1992;39:938–943.
29. Kim GH, Ahn HJ, Kim HS, et al. Postoperative nausea and vomiting after endoscopic thyroidectomy: total intravenous vs. balanced anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;60:416–421.
30. Kochs E, Côté D, Deruyck L, et al. Postoperative pain management and recovery after remifentanil-based anaesthesia with isoflurane or propofol for major abdominal surgery. Remifentanil Study Group. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:169–173.
31. Konstantopoulos K, Makris A, Moustaka A, et al. Sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar spondylodesis: a randomized trial. J Surg Res. 2013;179:72–77.
32. Lauta E, Abbinante C, Del Gaudio A, et al. Emergence times are similar with sevoflurane and total intravenous anesthesia: results of a multicenter RCT of patients scheduled for elective supratentorial craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2010;22:110–118.
33. Lebenbom-Mansour MH, Pandit SK, Kothary SP, Randel GI, Levy L. Desflurane versus propofol anesthesia: a comparative analysis in outpatients. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:936–941.
34. Lee DW, Lee HG, Jeong CY, Jeong SW, Lee SH. Postoperative nausea and vomiting after mastoidectomy with tympanoplasty: a comparison between TIVA with propofol-remifentanil and balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane-remifentanil. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2011;61:399–404.
35. Liu GY, Chen ZQ, Zhang ZW. Comparative study of emergence agitation between isoflurane and propofol anesthesia in adults after closed reduction of distal radius fracture. Genet Mol Res. 2014;13:9285–9291.
36. Martikainen M, Kaukoranta P, Kangas-Saarela T. Home readiness after day-case knee arthroscopy: spinal, desflurane, isoflurane or propofol anaesthesia? Ambul Surg.1998;6:215–219.
37. Mei W, Li M, Yu Y, et al. Tropisetron alleviate early post-operative pain after gynecological laparoscopy in sevoflurane based general anaesthesia: a randomized, parallel-group, factorial study. Eur J Pain. 2014;18:238–248.
38. Ogurlu M, Sari S, Küçük M, et al. Comparison of the effect of propofol and sevoflurane anaesthesia on acute and chronic postoperative pain after hysterectomy. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2014;42:365–370.
39. Oikkonen M. Propofol vs isoflurane for gynaecological laparoscopy. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1994;38:110–114.
40. Ortiz J, Chang LC, Tolpin DA, Minard CG, Scott BG, Rivers JM. Randomized, controlled trial comparing the effects of anesthesia with propofol, isoflurane, desflurane and sevoflurane on pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2014;64:145–151.
41. Park SH, Lee HG, Jeong CY, Jeong SW, Lee SH, Kim HJ. Postoperative nausea and vomiting after total thyroidectomy: sevoflurane combined with prophylactic ramosetron vs. propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2014;66:216–221.
42. Raeder J, Gupta A, Pedersen FM. Recovery characteristics of sevoflurane- or propofol-based anaesthesia for day-care surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:988–994.
43. Shin SW, Cho AR, Lee HJ, et al. Maintenance anaesthetics during remifentanil-based anaesthesia might affect postoperative pain control after breast cancer surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:661–667.
44. Sneyd JR, Andrews CJ, Tsubokawa T. Comparison of propofol/remifentanil and sevoflurane/remifentanil for maintenance of anaesthesia for elective intracranial surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:778–783.
45. Talke P, Caldwell JE, Brown R, Dodson B, Howley J, Richardson CA. A comparison of three anesthetic techniques in patients undergoing craniotomy for supratentorial intracranial surgery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:430–435.
46. Tang N, Ou C, Liu Y, Zuo Y, Bai Y. Effect of inhalational anaesthetic on postoperative cognitive dysfunction following radical rectal resection in elderly patients with mild cognitive impairment. J Int Med Res. 2014;42:1252–1261.
47. Yoo YC, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Shin S, Choi EK, Lee JW. Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized trial. Yonsei Med J. 2012;53:1197–1202.
48. Zoremba M, Dette F, Hunecke T, Eberhart L, Braunecker S, Wulf H. A comparison of desflurane versus propofol: the effects on early postoperative lung function in overweight patients. Anesth Analg. 2011;113:63–69.
49. Freye E, Brückner J, Latasch L. No difference in electroencephalographic power spectra or sensory-evoked potentials in patients anaesthetized with desflurane or sevoflurane. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2004;21:373–378.
50. Yeo ST, Holdcroft A, Yentis SM, Stewart A. Analgesia with sevoflurane during labour: i. Determination of the optimum concentration. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:105–109.
51. Zhang Y, Eger EI II, Dutton RC, Sonner JM. Inhaled anesthetics have hyperalgesic effects at 0.1 minimum alveolar anesthetic concentration. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:462–466.
52. Rowley TJ, Daniel D, Flood P. The role of adrenergic and cholinergic transmission in volatile anesthetic-induced pain enhancement. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:991–995.
53. Stevens RJ, Rüsch D, Davies PA, Raines DE. Molecular properties important for inhaled anesthetic action on human 5-HT3A receptors. Anesth Analg. 2005;100:1696–1703.
54. Bandschapp O, Filitz J, Ihmsen H, et al. Analgesic and antihyperalgesic properties of propofol in a human pain model. Anesthesiology. 2010;113:421–428.
55. O’Connor TC, Abram SE. Inhibition of nociception-induced spinal sensitization by anesthetic agents. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:259–266.
56. Antognini JF, Wang XW, Piercy M, Carstens E. Propofol directly depresses lumbar dorsal horn neuronal responses to noxious stimulation in goats. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:273–279.
57. Hans P, Deby-Dupont G, Deby C, et al. Increase in antioxidant capacity of plasma during propofol anesthesia. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1997;9:234–236.
58. Ito H, Watanabe Y, Isshiki A, Uchino H. Neuroprotective properties of propofol and midazolam, but not pentobarbital, on neuronal damage induced by forebrain ischemia, based on the GABAA receptors. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1999;43:153–162.
59. Angst MS, Koppert W, Pahl I, Clark DJ, Schmelz M. Short-term infusion of the mu-opioid agonist remifentanil in humans causes hyperalgesia during withdrawal. Pain. 2003;106:49–57.
60. Guignard B, Bossard AE, Coste C, et al. Acute opioid tolerance: intraoperative remifentanil increases postoperative pain and morphine requirement. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:409–417.
61. Zhao M, Joo DT. Enhancement of spinal N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor function by remifentanil action at delta-opioid receptors as a mechanism for acute opioid-induced hyperalgesia or tolerance. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:308–317.
62. Kotani Y, Shimazawa M, Yoshimura S, Iwama T, Hara H. The experimental and clinical pharmacology of propofol, an anesthetic agent with neuroprotective properties. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2008;14:95–106.
63. Singler B, Tröster A, Manering N, Schüttler J, Koppert W. Modulation of remifentanil-induced postinfusion hyperalgesia by propofol. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:1397–1403.
© 2016 International Anesthesia Research Society