The Efficacy of Opioid-Free General Anesthesia in the Management of Hip Surgeries in Elderly Patients.

Introduction Perioperative management of elderly patients differ from young patients due to physiologic and pharmacologic differences related to aging. Moreover, assessment for perioperative parameters and risks between age-matched elderly patients should be discerned while planning for the anaesthesia regimen. The latter could consist of opioid-free general anaesthesia (OFA) or non-opioid-free general anaesthesia (NOFA). Among the parameters for assessing the regimen's efficacy, time to extubate and pain control should be included. However, it is not yet established whether OFA could replace NOFA as a standard regimen for management of hip fracture. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of OFA for hip surgeries in elderly patients. Methods This is a retrospective study consisting of patients undergoing hip surgeries under opioid-free or opioid-induced general anaesthesia. Two groups were defined: Group 1 consisting of treated patients using OFA and Group 2 consisting of treated patients using NOFA. Patient demographics (age, sex, and weight), mean time to extubate and mean dose of morphine after recovery were computed. Postoperative morphine use was assessed for up to 24 hours. Comparison of the computed data was conducted between both groups. Mean postoperative morphine use was compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. The remainder of the means were compared using independent t-test. Qualitative data were compared using Fisher's exact test. Level of significance was set at p<0.05. Results A total of 73 patients were included. Group 1 consisted of 37 patients (12 were males with mean age 77±14 years) who underwent hip fracture procedure whereas Group 2 consisted of 36 patients (18 were males with mean age 73±17). There were significant differences when comparing sex, weight, and time to extubate (6.8±3 and 10±5 minutes in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; p<0.05). There were six patients in Group 1 and 17 patients in Group 2 that required postoperative morphine administration. Mann-Whitney U comparison of postoperative morphine use yielded significant differences (4.8±3 and 14.65±13 mg in Groups 1 and 2, respectively; p=0.001). Discussion This is the first study that assessed the efficacy of OFA compared to NOFA in the management of hip fractures. Non-significant differences in age might suggest that both groups are age matched. In addition, significant differences in time to extubate might help in reducing impact on ventilation, maintaining safe anaesthesia while minimizing intraoperative work overflow. Patients in Group 1 required less morphine in the postoperative setting than in Group 2. This might be explained by the sensation of paraesthesia which might have been confused with pain. Conclusions OFA could be considered in hip management in elderly patients; femoral and lateral cutaneous block seemed to act as morphine sparing in operative and postoperative settings by providing significantly less time to extubate with less postoperative morphine requirement.