Author
Listed:
- JingWang Liu
- JiaXin Liu
- MingJie Wang
- XiuLi Wang
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among women, and patients require rapid transition to adjuvant therapy post-surgery. Opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) is widely used but carries risks such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), immunosuppression, and hyperalgesia, which may delay recovery. Opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) and opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) may reduce these risks, but their effects on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) are unclear. This study compares the effects of these three anesthetic strategies on early postoperative QoR in breast cancer surgery using a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD420251065588), a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to June 1, 2025. Included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing OSA, OFA, and OBA in adult breast cancer surgery that reported QoR scores. Risk of bias and evidence quality were assessed using the Cochrane tool and GRADE system. Bayesian random-effects analysis was performed with the R package gemtc. Continuous data were reported as mean differences, and categorical data as odds ratios. Results: Seventeen RCTs with 1,254 patients were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed that OSA significantly outperformed OBA in 24-hour postoperative QoR (d = 0.050, 95% CrI: 0.038–0.062; SUCRA = 85.3%), and OFA was also superior to OBA (d = 0.044, 95% CrI: 0.020–0.068; SUCRA = 64.7%). No significant difference was found between OSA and OFA (d = −0.006, 95% CrI: −0.029–0.018). Secondary outcomes SUCRA showed that OFA was most effective in controlling postoperative nausea and vomiting (99.4%) and pain management (81.4%), while OSA excelled in emotional well-being (96.2%) and physical comfort (76.6%). For physical independence, OFA (85.1%) outperformed OSA (63.5%), with no differences in psychological support. Intraoperative opioid reduction showed an inverted U-shaped relationship with QoR improvement (p = 0.0004). Conclusion: OSA is the optimal strategy for enhancing overall quality of recovery within 24 hours after breast cancer surgery. Although OFA excels in PONV reduction and pain control, OSA offers more balanced benefits across multiple QoR dimensions. An individualized anesthetic approach is recommended, aiming for opioid minimization rather than complete elimination.
Suggested Citation
JingWang Liu & JiaXin Liu & MingJie Wang & XiuLi Wang, 2025.
"Opioid-sparing anesthesia versus opioid-free anesthesia for postoperative recovery quality in breast cancer surgery patients: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-22, October.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0334614
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334614
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.