Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Oxycodone”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Opioid-sparing anesthesia based on opioid-free principles for early recovery after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether an opioid-sparing anesthesia strategy (OSA), based on opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), improves early postoperative recovery quality and optimizes functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), compared with conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with blinding of patients, surgeons, and outcome assessors. SETTING: Single center, July 2025 to February 2026. PATIENTS: 98 adult patients scheduled for elective unilateral TKA. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to the OSA or OBA group. The OSA regimen used esketamine and dexmedetomidine as the primary analgesic backbone, whereas the OBA regimen was opioid-based. Both groups received preoperative femoral nerve block and were administered oxycodone at skin incision and closure. Postoperatively, both groups received the same multimodal analgesia and patient-controlled analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. Secondary outcomes included 48-h QoR-15; Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EQ-5D-3L at 1 and 3 months; high pain at 1 month and chronic postsurgical pain at 3 months. Exploratory outcomes included postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), among others. RESULTS: At 24 h postoperatively, QoR-15 was higher in the OSA group than in the OBA group (118.4 ± 11.5 vs 113.3 ± 12.2; adjusted difference 5.12, 95% CI 0.51-9.74; P = 0.029), and this advantage persisted at 48 h (adjusted difference 5.54, 95% CI 1.57-9.52; P = 0.007). The OSA group had a lower incidence of PONV (P = 0.025) and lower postoperative CRP levels (P = 0.001). At 1 month, OKS was higher in the OSA group (adjusted difference 2.31, 95% CI 0.34-4.27; P = 0.022), with no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In TKA, this OFA-based OSA strategy improved early postoperative QoR-15 scores. However, the QoR-15 difference did not reach the minimal clinically important difference, so its clinical relevance remains uncertain.

Humans

Comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacological interventions for sleep outcomes in chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Sleep disturbances are highly prevalent among individuals with chronic non-cancer pain and are associated with worse pain severity and poorer prognosis. The comparative trade-offs between the effectiveness and safety of available pharmacotherapies for sleep outcomes in this population remain poorly defined. Ninety-eight RCTs involving 28,920 participants (mean age 53.2 years, 71.2% female) were included. Moderate-certainty evidence demonstrated that melatonin significantly improved sleep quality compared with placebo (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.60, 95%CI: -0.98, -0.22). Ten agents (e.g., amitriptyline, oxycodone, gabapentin, pregabalin, duloxetine) also showed statistically significant improvements in subjective sleep quality (SMD = -0.24 to -1.07), but most effects were supported by low-certainty evidence and were accompanied by an increased risk of adverse events (odds ratio [OR] = 1.90 to 37.00). Conversely, melatonin was not associated with an increased risk (OR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.19, 3.94). Our findings indicate that melatonin shows promise as a safe, adjunctive option for improving sleep quality in this population, but larger, condition-specific trials are warranted to confirm these effects. Other pharmacological agents are limited by lower-certainty and unfavorable safety profiles. These results should be interpreted cautiously given limited direct comparisons, heterogeneous chronic pain populations, the high proportion of trials at high risk of bias, and the predominance of subjective sleep outcomes.

Humans