y deliver propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with lower anesthetic consumption. As both above are likely to bring benefit to the patients, it is imperative to explore their effect on postanesthesia recovery. Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) is a comprehensive patient-reported measure of the quality of postanesthesia recovery and assesses compendious patients’ experiences (physical and mental well-being). This randomized study assessed the effect of automated propofol TIVA versus inhaled desflurane anesthesia on postoperative quality of recovery using the QoR-15 questionnaire in patients undergoing elective robotic surgery. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients undergoing robotic abdominal surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were randomly allocated to receive propofol TIVA administered by closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) (CLADS group) or desflurane GA (desflurane group). Postoperative QoR-15 score on postoperative day 1 (POD-1) and postoperative day 2 (POD-2) (primary outcome variables), individual QoR-15 item scores (15 nos.), intraoperative hemodynamics (heart rate, mean blood pressure), anesthesia depth consistency, anesthesia delivery system performance, early recovery from anesthesia (time-to-eye-opening, and time to tracheal extubation), and postoperative adverse events (sedation, postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], pain, intraoperative awareness recall) (secondary outcome variables) were analyzed. RESULTS: On POD-1, the CLADS group scored significantly higher than the desflurane group in terms of “overall” QoR-15 score (QoR-15 score: 114.5 ± 13 vs 102.1 ± 20.4; P = .001) and 3 individual QoR-15 “items” scores (“feeling rested” 7.5 ± 1.9 vs 6.4 ± 2.2, P = .007; “good sleep” 7.8 ± 1.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.7, P = .027; and “feeling comfortable and in control” 8.1 ± 1.7 vs 6.9 ± 2.4, P = .006). On the POD-2, the CLADS group significantly outscored the desflurane group with respect to the “overall” QoR-15 score (126.0 ± 13.6 vs 116.3 ± 20.3; P = .011) and on “5” individual QoR-15 items (“feeling rested” 8.1 ± 1.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.0, P = .003; “able to return to work or usual home activities” 6.0 ± 2.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.6, P = .008; “feeling comfortable and in control” 8.6 ± 1.2 vs 7.7 ± 1.9, P = .004; “feeling of general well-being” 7.8 ± 1.6 vs 6.9 ± 2.0, P = .042; and “severe pain” 9.0 ± 1.9 vs 8.1 ± 2.5, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: Automated propofol TIVA administered by CLADS is superior to desflurane inhalation GA with respect to early postoperative recovery as comprehensively assessed on the QoR-15 scoring system. The effect of combined automated precision anesthesia and surgery (robotics) techniques on postoperative recovery may be explored further....

中文翻译：

---

接受经腹机器人手术的患者在闭环麻醉输送系统引导的异丙酚与地氟烷全身麻醉后的恢复质量评估 - 15 分：一项随机对照研究

y 以较低的麻醉消耗量提供异丙酚全静脉麻醉 (TIVA)。由于上述两者都可能给患者带来益处，因此有必要探讨它们对麻醉后恢复的影响。恢复质量-15 (QoR-15) 是患者报告的麻醉后恢复质量的综合衡量标准，可评估患者的体验（身心健康）。这项随机研究使用 QoR-15 问卷对接受择期机器人手术的患者进行了自动异丙酚 TIVA 与吸入地氟烷麻醉对术后恢复质量的影响评估。方法：120例在全身麻醉（GA）下接受机器人腹部手术的患者被随机分配接受闭环麻醉输送系统（CLADS）给予的异丙酚TIVA（CLADS组）或地氟烷GA（地氟烷组）。术后第 1 天 (POD-1) 和术后第 2 天 (POD-2) 的术后 QoR-15 评分（主要结果变量）、个体 QoR-15 项目评分（15 项）、术中血流动力学（心率、平均血压） ）、麻醉深度一致性、麻醉输送系统性能、麻醉早期苏醒（睁眼时间和拔管时间）以及术后不良事件（镇静、术后恶心呕吐 [PONV]、疼痛、术中意识）回忆）（次要结果变量）进行了分析。结果：在 POD-1 上，CLADS 组在“总体”QoR-15 评分（QoR-15 评分：114.5 ± 13 vs 102.1 ± 20.4；P = .001）和 3 个个体 QoR 方面的得分显着高于地氟醚组-15 个“项目”得分（“休息感觉”7.5 ± 1.9 vs 6.4 ± 2.2，P = .007；“良好睡眠”7.8 ± 1.9 vs 6.6 ± 2.7，P = .027；以及“感觉舒适且可控”8.1 ± 1.7 与 6.9 ± 2.4，P = .006）。在 POD-2 上，CLADS 组在“总体”QoR-15 评分（126.0 ± 13.6 vs 116.3 ± 20.3；P = .011）和“5”个单独 QoR-15 项目上显着优于地氟烷组（ “感觉休息” 8.1 ± 1.4 vs 7.0 ± 2.0，P = .003；“能够返回工作或日常家庭活动” 6.0 ± 2.2 vs 4.6 ± 2.6，P = .008；“感觉舒适且可控” 1.2 vs 7.7 ± 1.9，P = .004；“总体幸福感”7.8 ± 1.6 vs 6.9 ± 2.0，P = .042；“剧烈疼​​痛”9.0 ± 1.9 vs 8.1 ± 2.5，P = .042） 。结论：根据 QoR-15 评分系统综合评估，CLADS 给予的自动异丙酚 TIVA 在术后早期恢复方面优于地氟烷吸入 GA。自动化精密麻醉和手术（机器人）技术相结合对术后恢复的影响可以进一步探讨。