A&A Pro-Con Debate: Opioid-Free Versus Opioid-Conventional for Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia

In this Pro-Con commentary article, the Pro perspective advocates for the integration of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) techniques in perioperative care, highlighting their benefits, including significant reductions in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Meta-analyses have shown that OFA protocols effectively reduce PONV rates despite variability in protocols and surgical populations. Furthermore, OFA techniques provide effective pain control, often demonstrating analgesic outcomes comparable to conventional opioid-based techniques. Conversely, the Con perspective raises concerns about the increased risk of adverse events associated with OFA protocols, such as bradycardia, hypotension, and prolonged recovery times, as evidenced by large randomized controlled trials. Critics emphasize the lack of standardization in OFA protocols, variability in definitions, and limited timeframe for outcome assessment, which complicates comparisons and generalizability. Additionally, they point out that while OFA reduces intraoperative opioid use, it does not necessarily translate into decreased opioid prescribing at discharge, a key factor in addressing persistent opioid use.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
2025-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007800
Primary Topic
Anesthesia and Pain Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A&A Pro-Con Debate: Opioid-Free Versus Opioid-Conventional for Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia

Jennifer M. Hah, Scott Cao, David Hao, Mary Blythe Daniels
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Anesthesia and Pain Management
article

A&A Pro-Con Debate: Opioid-Free Versus Opioid-Conventional for Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia

Jennifer M. Hah, Scott Cao, David Hao, Mary Blythe Daniels
article en

Abstract

In this Pro-Con commentary article, the Pro perspective advocates for the integration of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) techniques in perioperative care, highlighting their benefits, including significant reductions in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Meta-analyses have shown that OFA protocols effectively reduce PONV rates despite variability in protocols and surgical populations. Furthermore, OFA techniques provide effective pain control, often demonstrating analgesic outcomes comparable to conventional opioid-based techniques. Conversely, the Con perspective raises concerns about the increased risk of adverse events associated with OFA protocols, such as bradycardia, hypotension, and prolonged recovery times, as evidenced by large randomized controlled trials. Critics emphasize the lack of standardization in OFA protocols, variability in definitions, and limited timeframe for outcome assessment, which complicates comparisons and generalizability. Additionally, they point out that while OFA reduces intraoperative opioid use, it does not necessarily translate into decreased opioid prescribing at discharge, a key factor in addressing persistent opioid use.

Anesthesia & Analgesia
Harvard University (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Stanford University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 49%
Anesthesia and Pain Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.