Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: A randomized controlled study

Guangquan An 1,#, Yiwen Zhang 2,#, Nuoya Chen 2,¤a, Jianfeng Fu 2, Bingsha Zhao 2,¤b, Xuelian Zhao 2,*
Editor: Alessandro Putzu3
PMCID: PMC8460000  PMID: 34555043

Abstract

Background

Reducing intra-operative opioid consumption benefits patients by decreasing postoperative opioid-related adverse events. We assessed whether opioid-free anesthesia would provide effective analgesia-antinociception monitored by analgesia index in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Methods

Patients (ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ, 18–65 years old, BMI <30 kg m−2) scheduled to undergo video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups to receive opioid-free anesthesia (group OFA) with dexmedetomidine, sevoflurane plus thoracic paravertebral blockade or opioid-based anesthesia (group OA) with remifentanil, sevoflurane, and thoracic paravertebral blockade. The primary outcome variable was pain intensity during the operation, assessed by the depth of analgesia using the pain threshold index with the multifunction combination monitor HXD‑I. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation monitoring by wavelet index and blood glucose concentration achieved from blood gas.

Results

One hundred patients were randomized; 3 patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention and 97 included in the final analysis. Intraoperative pain threshold index readings were not significantly different between group OFA and group OA from arriving operation room to extubation (P = 0.86), while the brain wavelet index readings in group OFA were notably lower than those in group OA from before general anesthesia induction to recovery of double lungs ventilation (P <0.001). After beginning of operation, the blood glucose levels in group OFA increased compared with baseline blood glucose values (P < 0.001). The recovery time and extubation time in group OFA were significantly longer than those in group OA (P <0.007).

Conclusions

This study suggested that our OFA regimen achieved equally effective intraoperative pain threshold index compared to OA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Depth of sedation was significantly deeper and blood glucose levels were higher with OFA. Study’s limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.

Trial registration: ChiCTR1800019479, Title: "Opioid-free anesthesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy".

Introduction

Pain management following video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) is still a challenging issue associated with significant pain and a risk of developing chronic pain due to intercostal nerve compression and injuries that occur when instrumentation is used in the intercostal space [1]. Opioids are the most effective analgesics and are widely used in VATS with opioid based anesthesia (OA) to produce perioperative analgesia, hypnosis, and the inhibition of the sympathetic system. Side effects associated with intraoperative opioid administration include hyperanalgesia [2], chronic postoperative pain, respiratory depression [3], postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) [4] and postoperative delirium [5]. The possibility of higher risks of progression and metastasis of lung cancer cells treated with opioids has also been hypothesized [69]. This explains the current trend of using non-opioid drugs as an alternative to the use of opioids for pain management during the perioperative period.

Recent studies have shown that opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) with a multimode intraoperative opioid sparing strategy, such as locoregional analgesia, ketamine, clonidine, and dexmedetomidine, can provide better postoperative analgesia, as well as lower risks of PONV and hypoxemia in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, breast cancer surgery, spine surgery, and bariatric surgery [1013]. In a retrospective study, Bello and colleagues reported that OFA for patients undergoing thoracotomy appeared to be feasible and enhance postoperative pain relief with less cumulative ropivacaine consumption in the patient-controlled epidtlral analgesia machine for 48 h after surgery, in addition to less postoperative morphine consumption and lower postoperative VAS scores [14]. In another retrospective study, Guinot and colleagues showed that OFA in cardiac surgery was associated with lower morphine consumption, shorter intubation times and shorter ICU stays [15]. We hypothesized that the use of OFA in patients receiving VATS can achieve the goals of analgesia, hypnosis, hemodynamic stability, and the avoidance of the side effects of opioids. Few studies have reported on the pain management related to VATS with OFA and the continuous monitoring of the depth of analgesia during VATS.

A variety of analgesia monitors have been developed to determine the depth of pain during surgery [16]. The pain threshold index (PTI), which is a 0–100 noninvasive index calculated from changes in electroencephalographic (EEG) signals, has also been recently proposed to reflect the analgesia-nociception balance during general anesthesia (GA). This equipment can offer a continuous analgesia-nociception index reading in unconscious patients under GA [17, 18]. There are currently few trials in the literature that have investigated whether OFA provides a uniform balance of analgesia-nociception when compared to traditional opioid-anesthesia in VATS with PTI.

In this prospective randomized trial, we tested the main hypothesis that protocol-driven intraoperative OFA can provide effective intraoperative analgesia compared to opioid-based GA with PTI.

Materials and methods

Trial design

This prospective, randomized, parallel-group and single-center clinical trial was conducted from November 2018 to March 2019, at Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University China. The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee (Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University Ethics Committee, Hebei, China, #2018049, Chairperson Prof Guiying Wang, on 20 Nov 2018). The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR 1800019479).

Participant eligibility and consent

We included patients with ASA physical status I or II, aged 18–65 years who were scheduled for elective thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy; breastfeeding; allergy to any experimental drug or its excipients; β-blockers therapy and HR <50 bpm; body mass index (BMI) more than 30 kg m−2; central nervous system diseases (such as epilepsy, cerebral infarction, or cerebral hemorrhage history); and history of chronic pain, alcohol, or drug abuse. The eligible patient signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.

Allocation and blinding

Patients were randomized in two groups (group OA and group OFA) using computer-generated random numbers (Excel® version 16). The distribution results are sealed in opaque, sealed envelopes and kept by the research coordinator. On the day of operation, the research coordinator gave each patient an envelope to the anesthesiologist in the operation room. To facilitate the management of intraoperative anesthesia, anesthesiologists who did not participate in patient evaluation at any time are aware of this plan. In the operation room, the data collector who records various outcomes during general anesthesia knows the method of anesthesia. Patients, surgical staff, and postoperative evaluators were unaware of their groupings.

EEG measurement method

After the patient rested for 2 min, the forehead and the mastoid behind the ears were cleaned. The EEG electrodes of the multifunction combination monitor HXD‑I (Heilongjiang Huaxiang Technology Co., Ltd., Heilongjiang, China) were placed on 2 cm above the midpoint between the eyebrows, above the bilateral eyebrows, and at the bilateral mastoid process. Two channels of EEG data were recorded by HXD-I and were then implemented to reduce the complexity of the features through continuous and discrete wavelet transform. The repeatable and regular changes when pain present were extracted from the brain waves as the characteristic indicator of subjective pain.

The analgesic index PTI calculated according to changes in EEG signals, specifically reflects the tolerance of the cerebral cortex to painful stimuli. It is suitable for GA but not suitable for local anesthesia. The range is 0–100. A PTI < 39 may be a risk of overdose of analgesics; A PTI 40–60 is appropriate for intraoperative analgesia; A PTI >70 denotes insufficient analgesia and need to add analgesics. The PTI increases following painful stimuli and decreases with administration of analgesics.

The sedation index (wavelet index, WLI) ranging from 0–100 shows the depth of sedation with changes in EEG signals. WLI < 35 over sedation; WLI 35–69 narcotization; WLI 70–89 light narcosis/ sleep; WLI > 90 wake fulness.

Anesthetic management protocol (Table 1)

Table 1. Time chart of anesthetic management.

Premedication Loading (10 min) GA Induction GA Maintenance GA Recovery
Group OFA Dexmedetomidine (1μg kg-1, 4μg/ml) Dexmedetomidine Dexmedetomidine *
(0.5 μg kg-1 h-1) (0.5 μg kg-1 h-1)
Ketorolac Sevoflurane # Palonosetron
(30 mg) (1%-3%) 0.25 mg
Etomidate Cisatracurium Neostigmine
(0.2–0.3 mg kg-1) (2–4 mg per 30 min) (up to 2 mg)
Cisatracurium (0.2 mg kg-1) Atropine (0.2–1 mg)
Group OA
Sufentanil Remifentanil # Namefene [19, 20]
(0.5 μg kg-1) (200–500 μg h-1) 0.5 mg
Etomidate Sevoflurane # Palonosetron
(0.2–0.3 mg kg-1) (1%-3%) (0.25 mg)
Cisatracurium Cisatracurium Neostigmine
(0.2 mg kg-1) (2–4 mg per 30 min) (up to 2 mg) Atropine (0.2–1 mg)

* Infusion was stopped 40 min before end of surgery.

# At end of surgery, inhalation and infusion were terminated.

GA: general anesthesia.

On arrival at the operating room, the overnight fasting patients received standard monitoring, including ECG, invasive blood pressure, pulse oximetry, temperature. The intraoperative analgesic administration regimen was variable between the groups (Table 1):

  • For patients in the group OFA, a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg-1 over 10 min) and a bolus of atropine 0.5 mg were administered before GA induction. GA was maintained with dexmedetomidine infusion (0.5 μg kg-1h-1) terminated 40 min before the end of surgery. All patients received ketorolac 30 mg IV at GA induction.

  • For patients in the group OA, a bolus of sufentanil (0.5 μg kg-1) IV was administered for GA induction. For maintenance of GA, remifentanil (25 μg ml-1, 8–20 ml h-1) was continuously infused and discontinued before skin closure.

In both groups, GA was induced with a bolus of etomidate (0.2–0.3mg kg-1), followed by cisatracurium 0.2mg kg-1 for muscle relaxation. After that, a single-lumen endotracheal tube (ETT) and a bronchial blocker (BB) were inserted into airway in turn. Muscle relaxation was maintained with intermittent intravenous injection boluses of cisatracurium (2–4 mg per 30 min). Sevoflurane was adjusted to maintain anesthesia. The use of midazolam was avoided. The patients were maintained on mechanical ventilation to keep the EtCO2 at 30–40 mmHg during two-lung ventilation (6–8 ml kg-1, 12–14 tpm) and to keep the EtCO2 at 30–50 mmHg during the period of one-lung ventilation (6 ml kg-1, 14–16 tpm) with 100% oxygen inhalation. Intraoperative normothermia was maintained with forced air warming blankets positioned over the exposed parts of the body. Hypotension (MAP < 60 mmHg) was treated with norepinephrine, and bradycardia (HR < 45 bpm) was treated with atropine. Nitroglycerine was administered when MAP > 20% of the preinduction baseline values. The target of PTI was from 40 to 60 and that of WLI ranged from 40 to 60. The tracheal extubation was left to the clinician’s discretion when patients achieved a regular spontaneous breathing pattern.

All patients were placed in a lateral position with operation side up after anesthesia induction. After surgical disinfection, in-plane ultrasound-guided (Voluson i, GE USA) single-injecting thoracic paravertebral blockade (TPVB) at T5-6 was performed. Once the image of the disposable injection needle (18G 10 cm, Kangdelai China) was caught in a site between the internal intercostal membrane and the pleura, ropivacaine (0.5%, 15 ml) was administered over 30s. During injection, an anterior displacement of the pleura (downward movement) was observed.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of this study was intraoperative PTI reading recorded at after entering the operating room (PTI0, baseline value), 10min after infusion of loading dose dexmedetomidine (PTI1), after intubation (PTI2), 30min after one-lung ventilation (PTI3), recovery of double lungs ventilation (PTI4), 5min after extubation in the operation room (PTI5). Secondary outcomes include WLI reading, MAP and HR at same timepoints as PTI, arterial partial pressure of oxygen, blood glucose concentration and lactic acid value from intraoperative blood gas at after entering the operating room (BGA0, baseline value), 1h after surgery begun (BGA1), 2h after surgery begun (BGA2), 5min after extubation in the operation room (BGA3). Total consumption of anesthesia medications, time to passage of flatus (the time from the end of operation to the patient complaining of the first spontaneous breaking wind event), PONV, length of stay, pH and SpO2 were measured and recorded.

In our trial registered with Clinical-Trials.gov, PI (pain index) was declared as primary outcome, and potassium concentration was recorded as secondary outcome. PI is a value indicating the degree of pain in awake subjects and is not suitable for patients under anesthesia. Therefore, our study did not report PI as primary outcome. Since some patients received intravenous potassium supplementation due to BGA0 blood gas detection of hypokalemia before induction of anesthesia, the intraoperative blood potassium values were not recorded.

Power analysis and sample size calculation

The sample size requirement was based on preliminary data from a previous pilot study of 15 patients undergoing VATS with OA which mean (s) PTI was 55.5 (10.4) after open chest. We assumed that OFA could achieve an equal PTI. The significance level is 0.05, the power is 0.9, the true difference is 6 and the standard deviation is 10. We calculated that each group should include 44 patients (PASS 11). Considering that the postoperative follow-up was carried out in the ward before discharge, the dropout rate was determined to be 10%, We recruited 50 patients in each group.

Statistical analysis

The categorical data were analyzed using the chi-squared test for independence or the Fisher’s exact test. The quantitative data were analyzed using the unpaired Student’s t-test for significance. If the data were not normally distributed as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used. Descriptive parameters are represented as means (SD). Highly skewed quantitative data are presented as median with interquartile range (IQR).

Repeated measures analysis of variance and student t-test were used to compare PTI, WLI, MAP, HR at six time points and PaO2, lactic acid levels and blood glucose concentration at four time points within and between groups. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 17.0.

Results

A total of 222 patients who from November 2018 to March 2019 were assessed for eligibility, finally 100 patients were enrolled in this clinical investigation and were comparable in the two groups (Fig 1). Three patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention: 1 case turned to open surgery, 1 peripheral venous catheter slid out during surgery, 1 patient needed re-exploration for postoperative intra-thoracic bleeding on postoperative day 1. Outcomes of these patients were not recorded in the postoperative period. The remaining 97 patients were suitable for analysis (Fig 1). The two groups had similar characteristics at baseline (Table 2).

Fig 1. Study flow diagram.

Fig 1

Table 2. Clinical characteristics.

Group OFA Group OA P–value
n = 49 n = 48
Gender (Female/Male) 27/22 29/19 0.68#
Age (IQR) 55 (47.5–60.5) 55 (50.3–59.3) 0.93*
Body Mass Index (BMI, IQR) 23.4 (21.3–25.5) 23.4 (22.2–26.4) 0.27*
Sites of VATS (Left/Right, n) 14/35 15/33 0.83#
Wedge resection/ Lobectomy/both: n 7/40/2 10/38/0 0.28#
Duration of anesthesia (SD, min) 151.3 (47.6) 160.8 (68.6) 0.44§
Duration of Surgery (SD, min) 137.1 (47.2) 144.6 (68.9) 0.54§
Fluid Infusion Volumes (IQR, ml) 1000 (1000–1250) 1100 (937.5–1263) 0.39*
Urinary volume (IQR, ml) 350 (250–500) 300 (225–500) 0.89*
Dexmedetomidine consumption (IQR, μg) 140 (130–165)
Remifentanil consumption (IQR, mg) 1.3 (1.0–1.6)
End-expiratory sevoflurane concentration at end of surgery (IQR, %) 1.4 (1.2–1.7) 1.3 (1.2–1.4) 0.15*
Ephedrine consumption (IQR, mg) 0 (0–6.0) 0 (0–5.3) 0.47*
Norepinephrine consumption (IQR, μg) 8 (0–46) 22 (0–85) 0.11*
Recovery time (SD, min) 13.2 (6.1) 9.5 (4.1) < 0.001§
Extubation time (SD, min) 12.5 (5.7) 9.7 (4.1) 0.007§
Remove drainage tube time (IQR, day) 4 (3.5–6) 5 (4–6) 0.62*
Dizziness 2 (4.3%) 12 (25%) 0.005#
Postoperative nausea and vomiting 2 (4.3%) 20 (41.7%) <0.001#
Time to passage of flatus (IQR, day) 1 (1–1) 1 (1–2) 0.02*
Hospital Discharge time (95%CI, day) 7.2(4.2) 6.6(1.7) 0.66*

Data are presented as relative number of patients, mean ± standard deviation (SD), median (IQR). Times are shown in minutes.

* Wilcoxon rank-sum test

# Fisher’s exact test

§ Student’s t-test.

Recovery time: time from intravenous injection of neostigmine and/or nalmefene to WLI >90; Extubation time: time from the completion of intravenous neostigmine and/or nalmefene to the removal of the tracheal tube; Time to passage of flatus: the time from the end of operation to the first spontaneous breaking wind event. If the duration is less than 24h, it is recorded 1 day; 24h-48h is 2 days, 48h-72h is 3 days, and so on.

The results of single factor (time) repeated measurement analysis showed that PTI value, WLI value, PaO2, lactic acid level and blood glucose concentration of the two groups showed significant changes at different time points (P < 0.001). At the same time, the linear fit test of the trend of PTI, WLI, PaO2, lactic acid and blood glucose under either opioid-free anesthesia or opioid-based anesthesia were also statistically significant (Tables 3 and 4, Figs 2 and 3, P <0.001).

Table 3. Summary of PTI and WLI with repeated measurement (mean, 95% CI).

Group PTI0 PTI1 PTI2 PTI3 PTI4 PTI5 P
Time Group Time*Group
PTI OFA 91.8 (89.5–94.1) 88.2 (84.7–91.8) 61.9 (58.6–65.2) # 53.6 (50.0–57.3) # 59.7 (55.7–63.8) # 92.7 (90.8–94.6) < 0.001* 0.86 0.62
OA 91.3 (89.1–93.5) 88.8 (85.2–92.4) 63.0 (59.6–66.4) # 54.2 (50.1–57.8) # 60.6 (56.6–64.5) # 88.8 (84.7–92.9)
WLI OFA 96.3 (95.0–97.5) 82.7 (77.8–8.5) # ^ 46.9 (42.8–51.1) # ^ 47.8 (44.3–51.3) # ^ 55.2 (51.4–59.0) # ^ 88.4 (86.9–89.9) # < 0.001* < 0.001 < 0.001
OA 95.4 (93.9–96.9) 90.9 (86.6–95.2) 54.5 (51.0–58.3) # 53.2 (50.6–55.8) # 59.5 (56.0–63.0) # 88.6 (87.2–89.9)
MAP OFA 106 (102–109) 107 (101–111) 115 (110–120) ^ 88 (84 (92) # 89 (85–93) # 98 (94–102) ^ < 0.001* 0.89 <0.001
OA 104 (101–108) 102 (99–106) 105 (101–110) 86 (83–89) # 93 (90–97) # 109 (105–113)
HR OFA 73 (69–76) 71 (68–74) 78 (74–81) 73 (70–76) 70 (66–73) 74 (71–76) ^ < 0.001 0.004 0.001
OA 76 (72–80) 75 (71–78) 82 (77–86) 74 (71–77) 74 (71–76) 87 (82–92) #

PTI0: baseline value, PTI1: 10min after infusion of loading does dexmedetomidine, PTI2: after intubation, PTI3: 30min after one-lung ventilation, PTI4: recovery of double lungs ventilation, PTI5: 5 min after extubation.

WLI: wavelet index; PTI: pain threshold index; MAP: mean arterial pressure; HR: heart rate.

*: Linear fitting test (time) P < 0.05

#: Compared to PTI0 P < 0.05

^: Compared between two groups P < 0.05.

Table 4. Summary of PaO2, lactic and blood glucose with repeated measurement (mean, 95% CI).

Group BGA0 BGA1 BGA2 BGA3 P
Time Group Time*Group
PaO2 OFA 81.7 (78.8–84.5) 166.9 (137.4–196.3) # 282.6 (243.2–322.0) #^ 84.5 (78.3–90.7) < 0.001* 0.39 0.01
OA 81.6 (79.1–84.1) 190.6 (157.6–223.7) # 223.9 (188.6–259.2) # 82.5 (72.2–92.8)
Lactic OFA 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 1.2 (1.2–1.3) 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 1.4 (1.3–1.5) # < 0.001* 0.71 0.06
OA 1.3 (1.2–1.4) 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 1.2 (1.1–1.3) 1.5 (1.4–1.7) #
Blood Glucose OFA 5.6 (5.4–5.7) 6.7 (6.4–7.0) #^ 6.6 (6.4–6.8) #^ 6.3 (6.1–6.6) # < 0.001* 0.004 < 0.001
OA 5.8 (5.6–5.9) 5.8 (5.6–6.0) 5.9 (5.7–6.1) 6.2 (5.9–6.5) #

BGA0: baseline value, BGA1: 1h after surgery begun, BGA2: 2h after surgery begun, BGA3: 5 min after extubation.

PaO2: arterial oxygen partial pressure.

*: Linear fitting test (time) P < 0.05

#: Compared to BGA0 P < 0.05

^: Compared between two groups P < 0.05.

Fig 2. Changes in wavelet index, pain threshold index, mean arterial pressure and heart rate (mean ±SD) between two groups.

Fig 2

WLI: wavelet index; PTI: pain threshold index; MAP: mean arterial pressure; HR: heart rate. PTI0: baseline value, PTI1: 10min after dexmedetomidine infusion (1μg kg-1), PTI2: after intubation, PTI3: 30min after one lung ventilation, PTI4: both lungs ventilation, PTI5: 5 min after extubation. *: p < 0.05 between groups.

Fig 3. Changes in arterial oxygen partial pressure, lactic and blood glucose with blood gas (mean±SD) between two groups.

Fig 3

BGA0: baseline value, BGA1: 1h after surgery begun, BGA2: 2h after surgery begun, BGA3: 5 min after extubation. PaO2: arterial oxygen partial pressure. *: p < 0.05 between two groups.

PTI readings between two groups were not significantly different at six time-points during the surgery (P > 0.05, Fig 2). The WLI readings at PTI1, PTI2, PTI3 and PTI4 were statistically significant lower in group OFA than those in group OA (such as 46.7 at PTI2 in group OFA vs. 54.5 at PTI2 in group OA; difference, 9.5 [95% CI, 3 to 13]; P < 0.001), and there was also the interaction between grouping factors * time factors (P <0.001).

The results of single factor (time) repeated measurement analysis showed that (Table 3, Fig 3) the blood glucose levels of patients without opioid anesthesia were significantly increased (20%) at BGA1, BGA2 and BGA3 (P < 0.01) which can be considered as blood glucose levels increased during the operation. There was no significant difference in blood glucose levels at different timepoints in group OA (P > 0.05). The results of multivariate repeated measure analysis of variance showed that the difference in blood glucose levels between the two anesthesia methods was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

The recovery time and extubation time of the OFA group were significantly prolonged (P < 0.05). There were not significantly difference in PaO2, pH and SpO2 between the two groups during operation. There was no local infections or hematomata at the puncture site 24 h after operation. During the follow-up period, no patient was transferred to the ICU, had respiratory insufficiency, need reintubation, or died. Acute cerebral infarction occurred in 1 case in group OA, and atrial fibrillation occurred in 1 case after operation. No patients in group OFA had hypoxia (SpO2 < 90%), hypotension or bradycardia requiring treatment.

Discussion

This prospective randomized study showed that, compared with opioid anesthesia, our OFA program can provide the same sufficient intraoperative analgesia-nociception balance under the guidance of PTI monitoring in patients receiving VATS, for ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ, 18–65 years old, nonobese patients. However, in the OFA group, deeper intraoperative sedation and higher blood glucose were observed.

In the present study, with intraoperative pain management guided by the PTI rather than via hemodynamic indices, the PTI readings in both groups were similar at all the time points and effectively maintained the optimal range from 40 to 60 during surgery, which is thought to predict adequate analgesia to nociceptive stimuli. Compared with OA, there are few reports on the efficacy of intraoperative monitoring of the nociceptive-antinociceptive effects of OFA for patients under general anesthesia. Therefore, the effect of nonopioid anesthesia has been criticized [21]. PTI has become a new parameter for balancing nociception and analgesia during surgery and emphasizes the adequacy of perioperative analgesia in unconscious patients [2224]. OFA is a multimodal anesthesia associated with hypnotics, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists, local anesthetics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and α-2 agonists. Tripathy and colleagues [25] found that patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging with axillary dissection for breast cancer achieved superior analgesia with opioid-free pectoral nerve block-based anesthesia that involved dexmedetomidine, propofol, and isoflurane. We utilized a specific OFA protocol that included dexmedetomidine, sevoflurane and TPVB to replace opioids [26]. Dexmedetomidine is a highly, potent, selective αlpha 2‐adrenergic agonist with intrinsic analgesic properties that can last for at least 12 h after surgery. Due to its analgesic properties, it has been used as an opioid substitute in various surgical interventions [10, 2729]. A systematic review and meta-analysis from Grape et al. found that intraoperative dexmedetomidine was superior to remifentanil, and its effects on pain can last up to 24 hours after surgery [30]. A loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg-1) infusion before the induction of anesthesia usually exhibits a central anti-sympathetic effect that may deepen anesthesia and spare the dose of anesthetics, and can provide an optimal balance between adequate postoperative analgesic properties and adverse effects in sensory nerve blocks [31]. Han and colleagues reported that the intraoperative administration of a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1 μg kg-1) combined with sevoflurane (compared to the use of propofol) led to significant stability in blood pressure during the operative period [32]. When compared with systemic agents, regional blockade is most effective for controlling movement-evoked pain [33]. TPVB not only causes dense somatic afferent blockades, but also completely blocks transmission within the sympathetic chain (due to the anatomy of the paravertebral space). TPVB can produce the same effective analgesia compared to thoracic-epidural-blocks, and can reduce the consumption of opioids without the negative events associated with epidural blocks [34]. In a prospective, randomized, blinded study of patients receiving VATS, the authors observed relief of pain (especially pain during coughing) after TPVB for up to 48 hours. In addition, intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the duration of intermuscular sulcus brachial plexus block analgesia and reduced cumulative opioid consumption [35, 36].

The WLI is a similar EEG-derived parameter to the BIS and is used to monitor the depth of sedation under GA [22, 37, 38]. Our results showed that with similar PTI readings between the two groups, WLI readings in the OFA group showed a more apparent decrease (10%) than those readings in the OA group. In addition, dexmedetomidine produced a state resembling stage 2 NREM sleep in the EEG with delta and alpha ranges of activity and characteristic arousal sedation [39]. Xu and colleagues [37] reported that, after dexmedetomidine infusion (a loading dose of 0.75 μg kg-1 and a continuous infusion of 0.5 μg kg-1 h-1), the calculated cutoff WLI readings ranged from 55.8–93.7. Yan and Feng reported that injection equivalent analgesia doses of sufentanil (0.2 μg kg-1) and remifentanil (2 μg kg-1) produced mildly decreased WLI readings from 84.7–98.6 and 91.4–99.0 respectively [40]. Zhang and colleagues reported that, in patients undergoing posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery with inhalation sevoflurane ranging from 1.5 vol % to 4 vol %, the WLI readings at the incision were 46.7 and 60 at skin closure [41]. Gu and colleagues [39] reported that due to less propofol consumption, as well as different action sites between dexmedetomidine and propofol, the BIS value for loss consciousness was higher in a loading dose of dexmedetomidine (1μg kg-1) with propofol than with an infusion propofol alone. In our study, the consumption of sevoflurane during surgery was not recorded; therefore, we were not sure whether the lower WLI in OFA is caused by the effects of sevoflurane that requires further research. Our results showed that deeper sedation in the non-opioid anesthesia regimen with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane (compared to opioid-based anesthesia with remifentanil and sevoflurane) was statistically significant during the in period of surgery, and the WLI readings in both groups were maintained at normal values ranging from 40–60.

Our results suggested that in patients under nonopioid anesthesia, the intraoperative blood glucose values increased significantly until the conclusion of surgery. The increase in plasma glucose concentration is one of the main features of the metabolic response to surgery and simultaneously demonstrates the effect of different anesthesia techniques on the stress response [42]. Dexmedetomidine attenuates the intraoperative surgical stress response by decreasing nociceptive transmission and by decreasing cortisol levels, thus leading to lower blood glucose levels [43, 44]. In contrast, dexmedetomidine can excite α2A-adrenoreceptors of pancreatic β-cells and inhibit insulin secretion which may cause hypoinsulinaemia and a resultant state of hyperglycemia [45]. Ghimire and colleagues [46] reported that 0.4 μg kg-1 dexmedetomidine decreased plasma insulin levels and mildly increased plasma glucose concentrations (4%) in healthy fasting human subjects. Görges and colleagues [47] reported that elevations in blood glucose levels (of +20%) in children were observed 15 minutes after the induction of anesthesia. Additionally, sevoflurane anesthesia has been shown to increase plasma glucose levels by impairing insulin secretion, inducing insulin resistance, and reducing glucose uptake and utilization [48, 49]. The effects of sevoflurane combined with dexmedetomidine on blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity in general anesthesia have not yet been reported. In our study, the blood glucose value was determined with the use of arterial blood gases to avoid tissue uptake and glucose. Our results showed that the lactic acid levels were not significantly different between the two groups at the tested time points. The reasons for the increase in blood glucose concentrations in nonopioid anesthesia are that insulin secretion is inhibited by dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane and/or nonopioid anesthesia cannot effectively control the stress response. These possible mechanisms require future studies.

This study had several limitations. First, intraoperative anesthesiologists cannot be blinded to the study interventions. Second, in our study, single-lumen-bronchial-intubation and BB (instead of a dual-lumen endotracheal tube) were used to reduce the stress response to intubation and extubation. Third, it is impossible to accurately calculate the amount of sevoflurane consumed during an operation; therefore, the end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations of the two groups at the end of operation were compared. Considering that sevoflurane may affect the intraoperative sedation index and analgesia index, we began to calculate the consumption of sevoflurane at different times during the operation in follow-up experiments. Fourth, our research is a study a single-institution, with a small sample size, and modifications have been made to some programs. There are no data reports on PI, since PI can only be used in conscious patients and the serum potassium concentration is not recorded, as some patients are supplemented with potassium, leading to selection bias. Fifth, we could not perform an intention-to-treat analysis including the 3 patients excluded after randomization since we did not follow these patients after exclusion. Finally, some protocol changes were performed. The strict inclusion criteria and other study’s limitations may limit the external validity of the study. Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term benefits of the avoidance of opioid use in lung cancer patients, as well as to assess the benefits of increasing survival.

Conclusions

OFA with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane plus TPVB seems to be feasible for the management of intraoperative nociception in ASA Ⅰ-Ⅱ, 18-65-years old, non-obese patients undergoing VATS for lung cancer. However, a deeper sedation level was produced in OFA than in OA for the achievement of an optimal balance of analgesia-nociception. A significant elevation in blood glucose levels in OFA group was also found. Study’s limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. CONSORT checklist.

(DOC)

S1 File. Study protocol-English.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Study protocol-original.

(DOCX)

S3 File. Protocol change.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the operating room teams of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei University, including nurses and surgeons, for their help in permitting the experimental protocol to take place.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Chen Z, Ali JM, Xu H, Jiang L, Aresu G. Anesthesia and enhanced recovery in subxiphoid video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. J Thorac Dis. 2018;10:6987–92. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.11.90 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fletcher D, Martinez V. How can we prevent opioid induced hyperalgesia in surgical patients? Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:447–9. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Practice Guidelines for the Prevention, Detection, and Management of Respiratory Depression Associated with Neuraxial Opioid Administration: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Neuraxial Opioids and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Anesthesiology 2016;124:535–52. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000975 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Smith HS, Laufer A. Opioid induced nausea and vomiting. Eur J Pharmacol. 2014;722:67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2013.09.074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Minkowitz HS, Scranton R, Gruschkus SK, Johnson KN, Menditto L, Dandappanavar A. Development and Validation of a Risk Score to Identify Patients at High Risk for Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014;20:948–58. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2014.20.9.948 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cata JP, Keerty V, Keerty D, Feng L, Norman PH, Gottumukkala V, et al. A retrospective analysis of the effect of intraoperative opioid dose on cancer recurrence after non-small cell lung cancer resection. Cancer Med. 2014;3:900–8. doi: 10.1002/cam4.236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Singleton PA, Mirzapoiazova T, Hasina R, Salgia R, Moss J. Increased mu-opioid receptor expression in metastatic lung cancer. British journal of anaesthesia. 2014;113Suppl 1:i103–8. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Maher DP, Wong W, White PF, McKenna RJ, Rosner H, Shamloo B, et al. Association of increased postoperative opioid administration with non-small-cell lung cancer recurrence: a retrospective analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113Suppl 1:i88–94. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Oh TK, Jeon JH, Lee JM, Kim MS, Kim JH, Cho H, et al. Investigation of opioid use and long-term oncologic outcomes for non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with surgery. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181672. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181672 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bakan M, Umutoglu T, Topuz U, Uysal H, Bayram M, Kadioglu H, et al. Opioid-free total intravenous anesthesia with propofol, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine infusions for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2015;65:191–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tripathy S, Rath S, Agrawal S, Rao PB, Panda A, Mishra TS, et al. Opioid-free anesthesia for breast cancer surgery: An observational study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34:35–40. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_143_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ziemann-Gimmel P, Goldfarb AA, Koppman J, Marema RT. Opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery beyond triple prophylaxis. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:906–11. doi: 10.1093/bja/aet551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kim DJ, Bengali R, Anderson TA. Opioid-free anesthesia using continuous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine infusions in spine surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70:652–3. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.6.652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bello M, Oger S, Bedon-Carte S, Vielstadte C, Leo F, Zaouter C, et al. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative epidural ropivacaine requirement after thoracic surgery: A retrospective unmatched case-control study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019;38:499–505. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2019.01.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Guinot PG, Spitz A, Berthoud V, Ellouze O, Missaoui A, Constandache T, et al. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on post-operative period in cardiac surgery: a retrospective matched case-control study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19:136. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0802-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ledowski T. Objective monitoring of nociception: a review of current commercial solutions. Br J Anaesth. 2019;123:e312–e21. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.024 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.An JX, Wang Y, Cope DK, Williams JP. Quantitative Evaluation of Pain with Pain Index Extracted from Electroencephalogram. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017;130:1926–31. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.211878 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kong H, Zhang H. Research progress of nociceptive stimulation and analgesic level monitoring during operation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology. 2020;36:612–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Chen YQ, Yue Y, Qing EM, Lin DM, Yang BX, Feng Y, et al. Nalmefene antagonizes the effect of opioid postoperative respiratory depression-a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, positive drug control study. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology. 2011;31:307–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jia Z, Chen Y, Zhang LL, Wang X, Zhao Y, Guo SQ, et al. The effect of different low-dose nalmefene in preventing postoperative hyperalgesia induced by remifentanil. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology. 2017;37:1159–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Frauenknecht J, Kirkham KR, Jacot‐Guillarmod A, Albrecht E. Analgesic impact of intra‐operative opioids vs. opioid‐free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:651–62. doi: 10.1111/anae.14582 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wu L, Wang S, Wang Y, Zhang K, Bai J, Zheng J. Prediction of Hemodynamic Reactivity by Electroencephalographically Derived Pain Threshold Index in Children Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Prospective Observational Study. J Pain Res. 2019;12:3245–55. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S231596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Su Z, An LJ, Zhang Y, Chen PH. The clinical value of analgesia index in evaluating the degree of analgesia during general anesthesia. Chinese Journal of Applied Physiology. 2018;34:461–3. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zhu QQ, Yue W, Jiang JN, Zhang M, Yang JX. Application of target-controlled infusion of remifentanil guided by pain threshold index in laparo-scopic subtotal gastrectomy. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2020;36:634–7 [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tripathy S, Rath S, Agrawal S, Rao PB, Panda A, Mishra TS, et al. Opioid-free anesthesia for breast cancer surgery: An observational study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34:35–40. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_143_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bugada D, Lorini LF, Lavand’homme P. Opioid free anesthesia: evidence for short and long-term outcome. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021;87:230–7. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14515-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kim DJ, Bengali R, Anderson TA. Opioid-free anesthesia using continuous dexmedetomidine and lidocaine infusions in spine surgery. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017;70:652–3. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.6.652 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kumar K, Kirksey MA, Duong S, Wu CL. A Review of Opioid-Sparing Modalities in Perioperative Pain Management: Methods to Decrease Opioid Use Postoperatively. Anesth Analg. 2017;125:1749–60. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002497 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gaszynski T, Gaszynska E, Szewczyk T. Dexmedetomidine for awake intubation and an opioid-free general anesthesia in a superobese patient with suspected difficult intubation. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2014;8:909–12. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S64587 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Grape S, Kirkham KR, Frauenknecht J, Albrecht E. Intra-operative analgesia with remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:793–800. doi: 10.1111/anae.14657 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Motaghi E, Ghasemi Pirbaooti M, Bozorgi H, Eslami M, Rashidi M. Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Breast Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Perianesth Nurs. 2021;36:179–186. doi: 10.1016/j.jopan.2020.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Han Y, Han L, Dong M, Sun Q, Ding K, Zhang Z, et al. Comparison of a loading dose of dexmedetomidine combined with propofol or sevoflurane for hemodynamic changes during anesthesia maintenance: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:12. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0468-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shanthanna H, Ladha KS, Kehlet H, Joshi GP. Perioperative Opioid Administration. Anesthesiology. 2021;134:645–59. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003572 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Agnoletti VGC, Piraccini E, Maitan S, Corso MR, Buccioli M, Poletti V, et al. Efficacy and safety of thoracic paravertebral block for medical thoracoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:916–7. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kang R, Jeong JS, Yoo JC, Lee JH, Choi SJ, Gwak MS, et al. Effective Dose of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine to Prolong the Analgesic Duration of Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: A Single-Center, Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2018;43:488–95. doi: 10.1097/AAP.0000000000000773 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Abdallah FW, Dwyer T, Chan VWS, Niazi AU, Ogilvie-Harris DJ, Oldfield S, et al. IV and Perineural Dexmedetomidine Similarly Prolong the Duration of Analgesia after Interscalene Brachial Plexus Block: A Randomized, Three-arm, Triple-masked, Placebo-controlled Trial. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:683–95. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000983 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Xu L, LI Z, Tian GG. Evalution of wavelet index in monitoring sedation depth with dexmedetomidine under combined spinal epidural anesthesia. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2018;34:1202–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Chun X, Yue Y. Comparative investigation of wavelet index and bispectral index in monitoring depth of anesthesia. J Clin Anesthesiol. 2010;26:836–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gu Y, Yang F, Zhang YH, Zheng JW, Wang J, Li B, et al. The effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on the requirements for propofol for loss of consciousness in patients monitored via the bispectral index a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020;20:96–102. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01013-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yan Q, Feng Y. Differences in sedation level and adverse effects produced by equivalent analgesic doses of remifentanil, sufentanil and fentanyl. Chin J Anesthesiol. 2012;32:853–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Zhang JW, Lv ZG, Kong Y, Han CF, Wang BG. Wavelet and pain rating index for inhalation anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8:5221–34. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i21.5221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Desborough JP. The stress response to trauma and surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2000;85:109–17. doi: 10.1093/bja/85.1.109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Li CS, Liu SF, Zhou Y, Lu XH. Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Perioperative Stress and Postoperative Pain in Patients With Radical Resection of Esophageal Cancer Under Combined Thoracoscope and Laparoscope. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018;98:3778–83. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2018.46.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Dey S, Kumar M. Comparison of pretreatment with dexmedetomidine with midazolam for prevention of etomidate-induced myoclonus and attenuation of stress response at intubation: A randomized controlled study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2018;34:94–8. doi: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_297_16 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Fagerholm V, Haaparanta M, Scheinin M. alpha2-adrenoceptor regulation of blood glucose homeostasis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2011;108:365–70. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2011.00699.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Ghimire LV, Muszkat M, Sofowora GG, Scheinin M, Wood AJ, Stein CM, et al. Variation in the alpha(2A) adrenoceptor gene and the effect of dexmedetomidine on plasma insulin and glucose. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2013;23:479–86. doi: 10.1097/FPC.0b013e3283642f93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Görges M, Poznikoff AK, West NC, Brodie SM, Brant RF, Whyte SD. Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Blood Glucose and Serum Potassium Levels in Children Undergoing General Anesthesia: A Secondary Analysis of Safety Endpoints During a Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Analg. 2019;129:1093–9. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004154 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.COK OY, Ozkose Z, Pasaoglu H, Yardim S. Glucose response during craniotomy propofol-remifentanil versus isoflurane-remifentanil. Minerva Anestesiol 2011;77:1141–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Tanaka K, Kawano T, Tomino T, Kawano H, Okada T, Oshita S, et al. Mechanisms of Impaired Glucose Tolerance and Insulin Secretion during Isoflurane Anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:1044–51. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181bbcb0d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alessandro Putzu

20 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-27554

Lower sedation index  and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. 

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Academic Editoror Comment:

A number of issues have been identified in the review process. While we feel that this manuscript shows promise, we also think that a major revision is needed. Before we can make a decision about this manuscript we want to offer you the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: "This prospective, randomized, parallel-group and single-center clinical trial was conducted from November 2018 to March 2019, at Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University China. The study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee (Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei, China, #2018049, Chairperson Prof Guiying Wang, on 20 Nov 2018)."   

 a.Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

 b.Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

 For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

4. In your Methods section, please ensure you explain any deviations from your original protocol.

5. We noted several instances of p < 0.000 in your manuscript. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, please report exact p-values for all values greater than or equal to 0.001. P-values less than 0.001 may be expressed as p < 0.001. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

6. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

  1. Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

  2. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

  3. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

  4. If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

8. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for this RCT comparing OFA to OA in lung cancer surgery. The authors show that OFA is associated to non-inferior analgesia, despite a deeper level of sedation and raised blood glucose.

Introduction

Page 3 L 64: please, detail that OFA provides better analgesia in the postoperative period. Inraoperative analgesia is actually the aim of this paper. This will help not making confusion.

See for reference

Analgesic impact of intra-operative opioids vs. opioid-free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frauenknecht J, Kirkham KR, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Albrecht E.Anaesthesia. 2019 May;74(5):651-662. doi: 10.1111/anae.14582. Epub 2019 Feb 25.PMID: 30802933 Free article.

Page 4 line 86: merge this part to the initial part of introduction; this will keep all the details on OFA together. I also think the authors can shorten this part. They do not need to detail on paravertebral block or ketorolac or Dexmethomidine, but just briefly explain that “OFA encompasses different strategies (including dexmethomidine, ketorolac and so on)…and the use of regional anesthesia to act on different components of pain pathways”. They may cite some articles explaining the topic. For reference:

Opioid free anesthesia: evidence for short and long-term outcome.

Bugada D, Lorini LF, Lavand'homme P.Minerva Anestesiol. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14515-2. Online ahead of print.PMID: 32755088

This is not mandatory but will significantly help the reader and make the reading more fluent.

Methods:

line 112 page 5: I guess thy mean “pregnant”

methods are generally well described: inclusion/exclusion, time frame, approval and registration are ok. Sample calculation is ok, as well.

Please, better detail on allocation and blinding. This is important. How do you assign patients to their group and how you keep the investigators unaware of their assignment? How data collectors register data on awareness and nociception during general anesthesia (I guess they are in the OR) without noticing that the patient is infused with one drug or the other?

Page 8 line 162

How do you maintain Sevoflurane ? Basing on Et%? Sevoflurane may interfere with hypnosis..if sevoflurane dose is not standardized, how can we make sure that different levels of hypnosis between OFA and OA patients are given by the treatment rather than by different sevoflurane concentrations? Please, better detail on this point.

Please, better describe in the text the sampling times used in the study: in the figure captions only it is not enough. This point should be clearer from the very beginning to the reader.

Results:

Page 9 line 193: please, remove the timeframe. It is already in the methods.

Page 12 line 247: significant “difference” , I guess.

How do the authors define time for extubation? Any specific parameter?

Discussion:

My main point: this work challenges the idea that OFA does not provide enough analgesia comparing to OA. Part of the criticism on OFA comes from this wrong assumption, that patients will have pain during surgery because they don’t get opioids. This is false, and this work specifically demonstrate it, with an objective measure of analgesia, and as a primary outcome.

So, please, highlight this point. This is good. Let state that this is the first study giving any evidence that intraoperative analgesia is comparable to OA; this will reinforce the concept that OFAis not denying anything to the patients, as already evident for postoperative analgesia. See for reference

Analgesic impact of intra-operative opioids vs. opioid-free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Frauenknecht J, Kirkham KR, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Albrecht E.Anaesthesia. 2019 May;74(5):651-662. doi: 10.1111/anae.14582. Epub 2019 Feb 25.PMID: 30802933 Free article.

Page 13 line 278-284: out of context. I would erase this part.

Why do they not use ketamine. Ketamine is a cornerstone of OFA. Is it because it may interfere with sedation measurement? Please, discuss this point.

Dexmedethomidine, as well as ketamine does, may give “false” or “apparent” levels of sedation because of their action of EEG..the authors state it in the discussion, but then they stop, only citing a reference. Please, better detail this point for the reader, because it is extremely interesting in the global evaluation of the study (see conclusions)

Page 15: line 317-320: not clear what do the authors mean

Line 321-323: why is this a limitation?

Conclusion:

I suggest some changes in the message the authors want to give..I suggest not to merely repeat the results

1- OFA provides comparable analgesia (see before)

2- They measure an higher level of sedation but: a) this is a secondary outcome; b) doses of sevoflurane may be adjusted (in future studies) when deeper sedation should not be achieved c) dexmedethomidine, as well as ketamine does, may give “false” or “apparent” levels of sedation because of their action of EEG. Is the deeper level measured really deeper? Further study with sedation as primary endpoint are needed.

3- Glucose is raised but it is probably because of the drugs and not because of surgical stress. So it does not probably mean that OFA does not reduce stress, but only that we need to stay aware and keep higher attention in diabetic patients.

Reviewer #2: I find the original manuscript interesting and it appears to be methodically correct and has not noticed any significant critical issues.

The title is appropriate to the content, informative, concise and clear.

The article deals with a very interesting topic in a comprehensive way and without structural shortcomings.

The data provided is complete and well described and the statistical analysis is absolutely well developed.

The study's objectives and conclusions are clear.

The references are sufficient as a scientific basis for the type of manuscript.

I recommend to the authors a more detailed description of the paravertebral block (which needle was used? Which ultrasound probe? In plane or out of plane technique?)

Reviewer #3: I read with great interest the study entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study ».

This is an interesting study because it represents a validation of intraoperative analgesia with OFA in comparison to standard opioid anesthesia. To date, we do not have such data.

My comments are as follows:

• The title must be changed because it does not reflect the objective of the present study. According to authors “In this prospective, randomized trial we tested the primary hypothesis that protocol- intraoperative OFA would provide efficacious intraoperative analgesia compared to the opioid-based GA with PTI monitoring”. The results were that you did not demonstrate any difference between OFA and non-OFA groups in term of PTI.

• I would suggest to use non-opioid balanced general anesthesia instead of opioid free anesthesia throughout the manuscript. In the title, you can use OFA but after do not use this term. OFA is a misleading term because people believe that you don’t treat pain.

• In the introduction section, the authors should better focus on cardiac and thoracic surgery. You have published OFA studies on this topic : Guinot PG, Spitz A, Berthoud V, Ellouze O, Missaoui A, Constandache T, Grosjean S, Radhouani M, Anciaux JB, Parthiot JP, Merle JP, Nowobilski N, Nguyen M, Bouhemad B. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on post-operative period in cardiac surgery: a retrospective matched case-control study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Jul 31;19(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0802-y. PMID: 31366330; PMCID: PMC6668113. Bello M, Oger S, Bedon-Carte S, Vielstadte C, Leo F, Zaouter C, Ouattara A. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative epidural ropivacaine requirement after thoracic surgery: A retrospective unmatched case-control study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019 Oct;38(5):499-505. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2019.01.013. Epub 2019 Feb 5. PMID: 30731138. These studies are interesting because (even they are retrospective ones) they add data to improve the discussion on your finding. They have been performed on thoracic and mini-invasive cardiac surgery that are quite similar to your population. And they use different OFA protocol. You should discuss your protocol in regard of those published.

• How was managed remifentanil dose during the surgery ?

• When did you perform TPVB? At the beginning or at the end of the surgery? Because if you performed the TPVB at the beginning of the surgery, you cannot exclude an effect of TPVB on your results.

• Table 2 : switch PRI with PTI. Please add definitions of abbreviations in the legend for all tables and figures.

• Even the result on BWI is statically significant, I don’t believe that it is clinically relevant. The values of BWI in the two groups were within the fixed ranges. This effect can be explained by the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine. It would be of interest to have values of end tidal sevoflurane during the surgery (T3 to T5). This is a major issue because you demonstrated a difference of sedation level.

• Discussion section: don’t discuss the validity of the PTI. You should better focus on the effectiveness of your OFA protocol regarding analgesia during the surgery. We do not have one type of OFA protocol. Some groups use lidocaine, other mix lidocaine and dexmedetomidine… You should discuss the bias of using TPVB if you perform this block at the beginning of the surgery. You should discuss how you manage sedative drugs during the surgery, thus the low clinical impact of lower sedation level with OFA. You can use recent publications evaluating the impact of a low vs high level of sedation during anesthesia. The results on blood glucose values are interesting because I observe the same finding at bedside in major surgery being performed with OFA. I also note higher lactate values but you did not demonstrate this because you have studied non major thoracic surgery. You should shorten the corresponding paragraph.

• Limitation section: I do not agree with your assessment “Third, it was impossible to calculate the consumption of sevoflurane during the operation, and thus the end-expiratory sevoflurane concentration at the end of surgery in both groups was compared.” It is possible to have value. Do you have a data base? Are you able to get these values?

• Outcomes (Item 6a) Completely defined pre-specified primary outcome measure including how and when it was assessed.

Incompletely. What was the primary objective? PTI or BWI ? Why did you perform sample size calculation only on PTI?

• Sample size (Item 7a)

How sample size was determined

OK

• Sequence generation (Item 8a)

Method used to generate random allocation sequence

Ok

• Allocation concealment (Item 9)

Mechanism used to implement random allocation sequence (such as sequentially numbered containers), describing any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned

Did you stratify randomization? If yes can you develop?

• Blinding (Item 11a)

If done, who was blinded after assignment to interventions (for example, participants, care providers, those assessing outcomes)

OK

• Outcomes and estimation (Item 17a/b)

For the primary outcome, results for each group, and the estimated effect size and its precision (such as 95% confidence intervals)

OK

• Harms (Items 19)

All important harms or unintended effects in each group

Could you provide data on safety ? bradycardia hypotension hypertension tachycardia…..

• Registration (Item 23)

Registration number and name of trial registry

OK

• Protocol (Item 24)

Where trial protocol can be accessed

OK

• Funding (Item 25)

Sources of funding and other support (such as supply of drugs) and role of funders

NO please provide sources of funding

Reviewer #4: Comments on Manuscript # PONE-D-20-27554 from An and colleagues.

The authors propose a randomized study comparing opioid free anesthesia (OFA) using dexmedetomidine infusion with opioid based anesthesia (OA) using fentanyl and remifentanil infusion in patients scheduled for thoracoscopic lung cancer resection. All the patients received paravertebral block. The authors used intraoperative monitors to assess intraoperative nociception and depth of anesthesia (general anesthesia with sevoflurane).

Introduction and abstract:

- the authors should not use “pain intensity or pain relief” in anesthetized patients but should use the term “intraoperative level of nociception or control of intraoperative nociception”.

- Also the abstract “results” mention T1….T2-T5 ? without any explanation in the methods. Please detail.

- The authors seem to rely on the monitoring they use to assess both anesthesia depth and nociception by analysis of EEG. The measures of all the monitors currently available to assess intraoperative nociception are subject to caution. More details about the monitor used here are mandatory – only one single reference (#17) is not enough.

- Introduction should be re-written. The authors have mixed all the potential benefits of OFA, from reduction of postoperative opioid side effects to chronic pain to cancer recurrence. Please focuse on OFA in the context of the present study i.e. control of intraoperative nociception and stress response to surgery.

Methods:

- The authors mention PTI values… please state if these are the values from the Company or the values from the scientific literature. Add more references about the intraoperative use of this monitor.

- Inclusion and exclusion criteria are well reported

- When was the paravertebral block realized: end of anesthesia induction or end of surgery?

- Provide more details about primary and secondary outcomes e.g. blood gas measuring glucose level, lactic acid….

- More the different times of repeated measures to assess both the primary and secondary outcomes should be detailed here in the methods

- Too bad that the authors who state in introduction that OFA may help to control postoperative pain did not assess pain values and analgesics in patients in the recovery room

- Statistical analysis is provided but power calculation is quite unclear because only mean PTI is reported; please describe the confidence interval or standard deviation.

Results:

- Please add in tables 2 and 3 what is statistically significant from what – not clear for the reader or better provide figures (some figures are already displaying the results of the tables)

Discussion: is confusing partly because your primary and secondary outcomes are not clearly describe in introduction and methods. You want to compare the control of intraoperative nociception, depth of anesthesia and stress response between two techniques of anesthesia (OFA versus OA).

Reviewer #5: Study appears well designed.

Limitations should include single institution study too

Tables are appropriate

Paper has grammatical errors and spacing mistakes between sentences which need to be addressed

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Domenico Pietro Santonastaso

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Jan 2021

Dear Editor:

On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive.

Comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled ‘Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study’(PONE-D-20-27554) are all valuable and immensely helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in yellow in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best wishes to New Year.

Yours sincerely,

Xuelian Zhao

31/12/2020

Here is our response to academic editors.

1. Comments. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Author response: We are sorry that in the submitted manuscription, the format of the paper does not meet the requirements of PLOS. We have modified it in accordance with the PLOS ONE style templates.

2. Comments: a. Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

b. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

Author response: We are sorry for our negligence of the full name of the ethics committee. We have added the full name of the ethics committee in the method section and online submission (Lines: 104-105, marked with yellow).

3. Comments: Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed).

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have stated in the method section that the patient can only be accepted to the study after signing the informed consent form (Lines: 110, marked with yellow).

4. Comments: In your Methods section, please ensure you explain any deviations from your original protocol.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have stated in the method section that the investigator should explain to the patient the difference between the experimental method and the original protocol, and then sign the informed consent form after obtaining the patient’s consent before enrolled into the study (Lines: 109-110, marked in yellow).

5. Comments: We noted several instances of p < 0.000 in your manuscript. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, please report exact p-values for all values greater than or equal to 0.001. P-values less than 0.001 may be expressed as p < 0.001.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have made corrections in the results section.

6. Comments: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

"No"

At this time, please address the following queries:

Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Author response: Thank you for point this out. All of authors received no specific funding for this work. We have changed the online submission on our behalf.

7. Comments: Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

"No"

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

Author response: Thank you for point this out. All of authors received no specific funding for this work. We have changed the online submission on our behalf.

8. Comments: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Author response: Thank you for point this out. We have corrected.

List of Responses

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for this RCT comparing OFA to OA in lung cancer surgery. The authors show that OFA is associated to non-inferior analgesia, despite a deeper level of sedation and raised blood glucose.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Comments:Introduction

Page 3 L 64: please, detail that OFA provides better analgesia in the postoperative period. Intraoperative analgesia is actually the aim of this paper. This will help not making confusion.

See for reference

Analgesic impact of intra-operative opioids vs. opioid-free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frauenknecht J, Kirkham KR, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Albrecht E.Anaesthesia. 2019 May;74(5):651-662. doi: 10.1111/anae.14582. Epub 2019 Feb 25. PMID: 30802933 Free article.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make paper clearer and well reflect the content of the article. We have rewritten the introduction and described that OFA can improve postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing open thoracic surgery, see Lines 53-59 with yellow labels.

Thank you very much for the literature, see reference 19 (yellow-marked).

2. Comments:Page 4 line 86: merge this part to the initial part of introduction; this will keep all the details on OFA together. I also think the authors can shorten this part. They do not need to detail on paravertebral block or ketorolac or Dexmethomidine, but just briefly explain that “OFA encompasses different strategies (including dexmethomidine, ketorolac and so on)…and the use of regional anesthesia to act on different components of pain pathways”. They may cite some articles explaining the topic. For reference:

Opioid free anesthesia: evidence for short and long-term outcome.

Bugada D, Lorini LF, Lavand'homme P.Minerva Anestesiol. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14515-2. Online ahead of print.PMID: 32755088

This is not mandatory but will significantly help the reader and make the reading more fluent.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewed, we have deleted the description of anesthetics in OFA strategies in the introduction and put this part into the discussion in detail.

Thank you very much for the literature, see reference 24 (yellow-marked).

3. Comments:Methods:

line 112 page 5: I guess thy mean “pregnant”

Author response: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and have made correction “pregnant”.

4. Comments:

Please, better detail on allocation and blinding. This is important. How do you assign patients to their group and how you keep the investigators unaware of their assignment? How data collectors register data on awareness and nociception during general anesthesia (I guess they are in the OR) without noticing that the patient is infused with one drug or the other?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. We have rewritten the allocation and blinding in detail lines from 128-137 (yellow-marked). Because the management of OFA and OA are different, it is not possible to blind the anesthesiologist and the recorder during the operation.

5. Comments:Page 8 line 162

How do you maintain Sevoflurane ? Basing on Et%? Sevoflurane may interfere with hypnosis if sevoflurane dose is not standardized, how can we make sure that different levels of hypnosis between OFA and OA patients are given by the treatment rather than by different sevoflurane concentrations? Please, better detail on this point.

Author response: We do think these are good questions. We have added an analysis of the effect of sevoflurane on the sedation index in the discussion section (Lines: 355-357).

Sevoflurane affects the depth of sedation and could be monitored by WLI (Jian-Wen Zhang, Zhi-Gan Lv, Ying Kong, Chong-Fang Han, Bao-Guo Wang. Wavelet and pain rating index for inhalation anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial. World J Clin Cases 2020 November 6; 8(21): 5221-5234; Reference 39, yellow-marked). Sevoflurane is an important anesthetic for our study. The experienced anesthesiologists adjust the sevoflurane according to the operation process and various indicators of the patient. Since the consumption of sevoflurane used for anesthesia cannot be accurately calculated, we only record the exhaled concentration of sevoflurane at the end of the operation, and there is no significant difference (P >0.05). Therefore, we cannot determine whether intraoperative consumption of sevoflurane is one of the reasons for the difference in WLI between the two groups. This is also the limitation of this article, which we have already described in the discussion section.

6. Comments:Please, better describe in the text the sampling times used in the study: in the figure captions only it is not enough. This point should be clearer from the very beginning to the reader.

Author response: We are deeply sorry for the serious omission and have made correction which we hope will meet with approval (Lines195-201, which marked in yellow).

7. Comments:Results:

7.1. Page 9 line 193: please, remove the timeframe. It is already in the methods.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, and the timeframe has been deleted from Results.

7.2. Page 12 line 247: significant “difference” , I guess.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion. It may be that we did not express it clearly. Line 247 means that there is no statistical difference in blood glucose levels of patients under opioid anesthesia at different time points. We have made corrections.

7.3. How do the authors define time for extubation? Any specific parameter?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. In our study, extubation time refers to the time from intravenous bolus of neostigmine to the removal of the tracheal intubation. The indications for tracheal intubation removal are controlled by the anesthesiologist.

8. Comments:Discussion:

My main point: this work challenges the idea that OFA does not provide enough analgesia comparing to OA. Part of the criticism on OFA comes from this wrong assumption, that patients will have pain during surgery because they don’t get opioids. This is false, and this work specifically demonstrate it, with an objective measure of analgesia, and as a primary outcome.

So, please, highlight this point. This is good. Let state that this is the first study giving any evidence that intraoperative analgesia is comparable to OA; this will reinforce the concept that OFA is not denying anything to the patients, as already evident for postoperative analgesia. See for reference (Analgesic impact of intra-operative opioids vs. opioid-free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frauenknecht J, Kirkham KR, Jacot-Guillarmod A, Albrecht E. Anaesthesia. 2019 May;74(5):651-662. doi: 10.1111/anae.14582. Epub 2019 Feb 25. PMID: 30802933 Free article).

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, we have rewritten discussion and reiterated that the method of observing PTI readings was used for the first time to achieve real-time monitoring of the depth of analgesia during the operation, which confirmed that there was no difference between opioid anesthesia and opioid anesthesia (Lines: 309-311,319-333).

9. Comments:

9.1. Page 13 line 278-284: out of context. I would erase this part.

Author response: We do think these are good suggestion. We have deleted and rewritten this part (Lines:292-335).

9.2. Why do they not use ketamine. Ketamine is a cornerstone of OFA. Is it because it may interfere with sedation measurement? Please, discuss this point.

Author response: We do think these are good questions. Ketamine is a cornerstone of OFA, but ketamine can cause hallucinations and nightmares after surgery, so it is rarely used in ours hospital. Another important reason is that our hospital cannot order ketamine, there is no ketamine for clinical anesthesia.

9.3. Dexmedethomidine, as well as ketamine does, may give “false” or “apparent” levels of sedation because of their action of EEG.. the authors state it in the discussion, but then they stop, only citing a reference. Please, better detail this point for the reader, because it is extremely interesting in the global evaluation of the study

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have detail in discussion (Lines:348, 356-359, yellow-marked)

10. Comments:

10.1. Page 15: line 317-320: not clear what do the authors mean

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten this part, see lines 385-389 for details (yellow-marked).

10.2. Line 321-323: why is this a limitation?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. Because single-lung airway management in VATS generally uses dual-lumen endotracheal catheters, the use of single-lumen endotracheal catheters plus bronchial blocker is rare. Moreover, the stress response of double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation is more severe than that of single-lumen tube.

11. Comments:Conclusion:

I suggest some changes in the message the authors want to give. I suggest not to merely repeat the results

1- OFA provides comparable analgesia (see before)

2- They measure an higher level of sedation but: a) this is a secondary outcome; b) doses of sevoflurane may be adjusted (in future studies) when deeper sedation should not be achieved c) dexmedethomidine, as well as ketamine does, may give “false” or “apparent” levels of sedation because of their action of EEG. Is the deeper level measured really deeper? Further study with sedation as primary endpoint are needed.

3- Glucose is raised but it is probably because of the drugs and not because of surgical stress. So it does not probably mean that OFA does not reduce stress, but only that we need to stay aware and keep higher attention in diabetic patients.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have rewritten the conclusions. In our OFA regimen, sevoflurane plays an important role. If the intraoperative consumption of sevoflurane can be clarified, it can be more clearly explained whether sevoflurane is the cause of lower sedation index in OFA except dexmedetomidine. Therefore, in the new study, we calculate the consumption of sevoflurane in different time intervals and the number of changing concentrations of sevoflurane during the operation.

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #2: I find the original manuscript interesting and it appears to be methodically correct and has not noticed any significant critical issues.

The title is appropriate to the content, informative, concise and clear.

The article deals with a very interesting topic in a comprehensive way and without structural shortcomings.

The data provided is complete and well described and the statistical analysis is absolutely well developed.

The study's objectives and conclusions are clear.

The references are sufficient as a scientific basis for the type of manuscript.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Your comment is valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper.

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Comments:I recommend to the authors a more detailed description of the paravertebral block (which needle was used? Which ultrasound probe? In plane or out of plane technique?)

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion. According to your suggestions, we have perfected the operation of thoracic paraspinal block under ultrasound guidance (Lines: 184-188, marked in yellow).

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #3: I read with great interest the study entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study ».

This is an interesting study because it represents a validation of intraoperative analgesia with OFA in comparison to standard opioid anesthesia. To date, we do not have such data.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Comments:• The title must be changed because it does not reflect the objective of the present study. According to authors “In this prospective, randomized trial we tested the primary hypothesis that protocol- intraoperative OFA would provide efficacious intraoperative analgesia compared to the opioid-based GA with PTI monitoring”. The results were that you did not demonstrate any difference between OFA and non-OFA groups in term of PTI.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make the title clearer and well reflect the content of the article. We have modified title to “The equal analgesic index and lower sedation index with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study”.

2. Comments:• I would suggest to use non-opioid balanced general anesthesia instead of opioid free anesthesia throughout the manuscript. In the title, you can use OFA but after do not use this term. OFA is a misleading term because people believe that you don’t treat pain.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will help us make the paper more rigorous.

It can be seen from literatures that there are ‘non-opioid anesthesia’ and ‘opioid-sparing anesthesia’ similarly to ‘opioid-free anesthesia’. Currently what can be accepted so far is ‘opioid-free anesthesia’. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is an emerging technique summarized as “multimodal anesthesia” to supply for OBA. As one drug will not replace opioids, it is the association of drugs and/or techniques that allows a good quality general anesthesia with no need for opioids. A rational strategy implies: 1) combining anti-nociceptive agents to target different circuits involved in nociceptive transmission, 2) monitoring nociception, 3) explicitly using sedative effects of anti-nociceptive agents to reduce the doses of hypnotic agents and 4) providing prolonged pain control.

Dario BUGADA, et al. Opioid free anesthesia: evidence for short and long-term outcome. [J] Minerva Anesthesiology 2020 Aug 04.

J. Frauenknecht, K. R. Kirkham, A. Jacot-Guillarmod and E. Albrecht. Analgesic impact of intra-operative opioids vs. opioid-free anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.[J] Anaesthesia 2019, 74, 651–662

HeleneBeloeil. Opioid-free anesthesia. [J]. Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology. 2019;33(3): 353-360

Therefore, in the revision of this article, we use OFA as a conceptual term, while some content descriptions we use non-free anesthesia.

3. Comments:• In the introduction section, the authors should better focus on cardiac and thoracic surgery. You have published OFA studies on this topic: Guinot PG, Spitz A, Berthoud V, Ellouze O, Missaoui A, Constandache T, Grosjean S, Radhouani M, Anciaux JB, Parthiot JP, Merle JP, Nowobilski N, Nguyen M, Bouhemad B. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on post-operative period in cardiac surgery: a retrospective matched case-control study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019 Jul 31;19(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s12871-019-0802-y. PMID: 31366330; PMCID: PMC6668113. Bello M, Oger S, Bedon-Carte S, Vielstadte C, Leo F, Zaouter C, Ouattara A. Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative epidural ropivacaine requirement after thoracic surgery: A retrospective unmatched case-control study. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019 Oct;38(5):499-505. doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2019.01.013. Epub 2019 Feb 5. PMID: 30731138. These studies are interesting because (even they are retrospective ones) they add data to improve the discussion on your finding. They have been performed on thoracic and mini-invasive cardiac surgery that are quite similar to your population. And they use different OFA protocol. You should discuss your protocol in regard of those published.

Author response: We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on introduction (Reference 14 and 15, yellow-marked). We have rewritten the introduction and described in detail that OFA can improve postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing open thoracic surgery, see Lines 53-59 with yellow labels.

4. Comments:• How was managed remifentanil dose during the surgery ?

Author response: We do think this is a good question.

The anesthesia of all patients in this study was completed by the experienced anesthesiologist. The anesthesiologist adjusts the remifentanil infusion rate during the operation according to the progress of the operation, the patient’s blood pressure and heart rate, and his own experience. We recorded the consumption of remifentanil throughout the operation.

5. Comments:• When did you perform TPVB? At the beginning or at the end of the surgery? Because if you performed the TPVB at the beginning of the surgery, you cannot exclude an effect of TPVB on your results.

Author response: We do think this is a good question.

In our study, after the anesthesia induction, all patients were placed in a lateral position and received single-injecting TPVB guided by an ultrasound machine at T5-6 with ropivacaine (0.5%, 15 ml). In our department of anesthesia, all patients undergoing thoracoscopic lobectomy received general anesthesia plus thoracic paravertebral block anesthesia (before beginning of surgery with different local anesthetic). Because we cannot rule out the analgesic effect of paravertebral block, all patients in this study received paravertebral block with 0.5%ropivacaine 15 ml.

We have discussed effect of TPVB on our result (Lines334-343).

6. Comments:• Table 2 : switch PRI with PTI. Please add definitions of abbreviations in the legend for all tables and figures.

Author response: We are very sorry for the serious omission and have made correction (marked in yellow) which we hope will meet with approval.

7. Comments: Even the result on BWI is statically significant, I don’t believe that it is clinically relevant. The values of BWI in the two groups were within the fixed ranges. This effect can be explained by the sedation effect of dexmedetomidine. It would be of interest to have values of end tidal sevoflurane during the surgery (T3 to T5). This is a major issue because you demonstrated a difference of sedation level.

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment.

Our results showed that the BWI readings in group OFA were significantly lower than those of group OA (55.2: 59.5 at T3), however, the BWI readings were in normal depth of sedation. We also made a statement in the discussion section (Lines: 364-365).

8. Comments:• Discussion section: don’t discuss the validity of the PTI. You should better focus on the effectiveness of your OFA protocol regarding analgesia during the surgery. We do not have one type of OFA protocol. Some groups use lidocaine, other mix lidocaine and dexmedetomidine… You should discuss the bias of using TPVB if you perform this block at the beginning of the surgery. You should discuss how you manage sedative drugs during the surgery, thus the low clinical impact of lower sedation level with OFA. You can use recent publications evaluating the impact of a low vs high level of sedation during anesthesia. The results on blood glucose values are interesting because I observe the same finding at bedside in major surgery being performed with OFA. I also note higher lactate values but you did not demonstrate this because you have studied non major thoracic surgery. You should shorten the corresponding paragraph.

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions. We have deleted the validity of the PTI and rewritten this part (Lines: 319-343).

Our study results show that there is no significant difference in lactic acid levels at the time points between the two groups, but the lactic acid values after extubation of the two groups are significantly higher than the preoperative basic values.

9. Comments:• Limitation section: I do not agree with your assessment “Third, it was impossible to calculate the consumption of sevoflurane during the operation, and thus the end-expiratory sevoflurane concentration at the end of surgery in both groups was compared.” It is possible to have value. Do you have a data base? Are you able to get these values?

Author response: We do think these are good questions.

We observed that during the entire period of anesthesia, the senior anesthesiologists need to frequently adjust the sevoflurane inhalation concentration and oxygen flow according to the progress of the operation and the patient's vital signs. Therefore, the amount of sevoflurane cannot be accurately calculated (Consumption of inhaled anesthetics (ml)/hour = constant λ × volatile tank scale (%) × fresh gas flow (L/min). We only record the exhaled concentration of sevoflurane at the end of the operation, and there is no significant difference (P>0.05). Therefore, we cannot determine whether intraoperative consumption of sevoflurane is one of the reasons for the difference in WLI between the two groups. This is one of the limitations of this article. However, sevoflurane is an important anesthetic for our study. which affects the depth of sedation and could be monitored by WLI (Jian-Wen Zhang, Zhi-Gan Lv, Ying Kong, Chong-Fang Han, Bao-Guo Wang. Wavelet and pain rating index for inhalation anesthesia: A randomized controlled trial. World J Clin Cases 2020 November 6; 8(21): 5221-5234). Therefore, in future experiments, we plan to record the number and time of adjusting sevoflurane inhalation concentration in order to calculate the amount of sevoflurane.

10. Comments:• Outcomes (Item 6a) Completely defined pre-specified primary outcome measure including how and when it was assessed.

Incompletely. What was the primary objective? PTI or BWI ? Why did you perform sample size calculation only on PTI?

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. PTI was the primary objective of our study. The purpose of this study is to observe whether no opioid anesthesia can achieve the equal analgesic effect of traditional opioid anesthesia. Therefore, we set the analgesia index as the primary observation index and calculate the sample size based on the analgesia index.

11. Comments:• Allocation concealment (Item 9)

Mechanism used to implement random allocation sequence (such as sequentially numbered containers), describing any steps taken to conceal the sequence until interventions were assigned

Did you stratify randomization? If yes can you develop?

Author response: We do think this is a good question. We did not perform stratified randomization during random allocation. But in our new study, we are stratified and randomized whether you have diabetes.

12. Comments:• Harms (Items 19)

All important harms or unintended effects in each group

Could you provide data on safety ? bradycardia hypotension hypertension tachycardia…..

Author response: We do think this is a good question. Yes,we recorded the incidence of complications in this experiment, such as sinus brachytherapy, hypertension, hypotension, etc. There was no statistical difference between the two groups.

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #4: Comments on Manuscript # PONE-D-20-27554 from An and colleagues.

The authors propose a randomized study comparing opioid free anesthesia (OFA) using dexmedetomidine infusion with opioid based anesthesia (OA) using fentanyl and remifentanil infusion in patients scheduled for thoracoscopic lung cancer resection. All the patients received paravertebral block. The authors used intraoperative monitors to assess intraoperative nociception and depth of anesthesia (general anesthesia with sevoflurane).

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study”(PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Introduction and abstract:

1. Comments:- the authors should not use “pain intensity or pain relief” in anesthetized patients but should use the term “intraoperative level of nociception or control of intraoperative nociception”.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper clearer and more well-organized. We have made changes in relevant places in the article.

2. Comments:- Also the abstract “results” mention T1….T2-T5 ? without any explanation in the methods. Please detail.

Author response: We are very sorry for the serious omission and have made correction which we hope will meet with approval (Lines194-201, which marked in yellow).

3. Comments:- The authors seem to rely on the monitoring they use to assess both anesthesia depth and nociception by analysis of EEG. The measures of all the monitors currently available to assess intraoperative nociception are subject to caution. More details about the monitor used here are mandatory – only one single reference (#17) is not enough.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper more credible. We have added three more literatures. (#18: Hao Kong HZ. Research progress of noxious pricking stimulation and analgesic water level monitoring during operation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesiology. 2020;36(06):612-5; #21: Zhen Su LA, Yang Zhang, Lianhua Chen. The clinical value of analgesia index in evaluating the degree of analgesia during general anesthesia. Chinese Journal of Applied Physiology. 2018;34(5):461-3; #22: Qingqing Zhu, Wei Yue, Jinnan Jiang, Miao Zhang,JianxinYang. Application of target-controlled infusion of remifentanil guided by pain threshold index in laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy. J Clinical Anesthesiology, 2020;36(7):634-7).

4. Comments:- Introduction should be re-written. The authors have mixed all the potential benefits of OFA, from reduction of postoperative opioid side effects to chronic pain to cancer recurrence. Please focuse on OFA in the context of the present study i.e. control of intraoperative nociception and stress response to surgery.

Author response: We agree the reviewer’s suggestion which will make our paper clearer and well reflect the content of the article. We have rewritten the introduction and described in detail the effects of OFA on intraoperative surgical stress response and nociception in the discussion section.

Methods:

5. Comments:- The authors mention PTI values… please state if these are the values from the Company or the values from the scientific literature. Add more references about the intraoperative use of this monitor.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper more credible. The values of PTI and values of BWI were from the Company(Yibin Wu. Extraction of objective and quantitative indexs of pain, anxiety, depression and other brain function states from electroencephalogram. China Medical Engineering, 2017;25(4):1-7).

6. Comments:- When was the paravertebral block realized: end of anesthesia induction or end of surgery?

Author response: We are very sorry for the serious omission. After the anesthesia induction, all patients were placed in a lateral position and received single-injecting TPVB.

7. Comments:- Provide more details about primary and secondary outcomes e.g. blood gas measuring glucose level, lactic acid….

Author response: As the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added and improved the details about primary and secondary outcomes (Lines 194-201 and yellow-marked).

8. Comments:- More the different times of repeated measures to assess both the primary and secondary outcomes should be detailed here in the methods.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out, which will make our paper more distinct. We have added and improved the details about primary and secondary outcomes (Lines 194-201 and yellow-marked).

9. Comments:- Too bad that the authors who state in introduction that OFA may help to control postoperative pain did not assess pain values and analgesics in patients in the recovery room

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper more distinct. Because the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) of our hospital was rebuilt in 2018, we did not record the patient's PTI readings and BWI readings in the PACU. According to our original protocol, the patients in group OFA were treated with dexmedetomidine plus ketorolac in PCIA for postoperative analgesia and patients in group OA were received dezocine and ketorolac in PCIA for postoperative analgesia. Our results showed that there was no statistical difference in PTI values and BWI values between the two analgesic regimens. Because the postoperative analgesic of the OA group was different from intraoperative opioids, we did not discuss in this article.

10. Comments:- Statistical analysis is provided but power calculation is quite unclear because only mean PTI is reported; please describe the confidence interval or standard deviation.

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion, which will make our paper more distinct. We have added standard deviation of PTI.

11. Comments:- Please add in tables 2 and 3 what is statistically significant from what – not clear for the reader or better provide figures (some figures are already displaying the results of the tables)

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have improved the statistically significant of table 2 and table 3 highlighted with yellow marker.

12. Comments:Discussion: is confusing partly because your primary and secondary outcomes are not clearly describe in introduction and methods. You want to compare the control of intraoperative nociception, depth of anesthesia and stress response between two techniques of anesthesia (OFA versus OA).

Author response: We do think this is an excellent suggestion. We have rewritten introduction and methods, to clear that the primary outcome is PTI, and the secondary outcomes are WLI and blood glucose level and discussion part.

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Reviewer #5: Study appears well designed.

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Comments: “Limitations should include single institution study too”.

Author response: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that the single institution study is the limitation of our study was added (Lines: 404-405, yellow-marked).

2. Comments: “Paper has grammatical errors and spacing mistakes between sentences which need to be addressed”.

Author response: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and have made correction.

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

Alessandro Putzu

9 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R1

Equal analgesic index and lower sedation index with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

A number of issues have been identified in the review process. While we feel that this manuscript shows promise, we also think that a major revision is needed. Before we can make a final decision about this manuscript we want to offer you the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editor Comments:

Major comments

1- The manuscript should be conformed to all points reported in the CONSORT guidelines.

2- Title. I suggest to use a shorter, clearer and objective title, such as: “Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study”

3- Abstract. The use of T1-2-3-4-5-6 time points are unclear. Readers should be able to understand the time points when reading the abstract. Please increase clarity. I suggest to avoid the use of these acronyms in the abstract.

4- Abstract. You should report that you included only ASA 1-2, 18-65 years old, non-obese, patients.

5- Methods. You registered the protocol at the end of the study (Date of Last Refreshed on:2020/7/5 22:02:01). This is a major limitation.

6- Registration. The study is registered on ChiCTR, not on clincialtrial.gov.

7- Primary outcomes. In the protocol (ChiCTR ) you reported 3 co-primary endpoints: pain evaluation, MAP, analgesic index, pain index. Please report in Methods why you changed the pre-defined outcome. All these outcome should be reported in the manuscript. This is a limitations to report in the discussion.

8- Secondary outcomes. In the protocol you reported as secondary outcomes: exhaust time, PONV, length of stay, PaO2, length of stay, lactic acid, pH, K, SpO2. Please report why you changed this pre-defined outcomes. Multiple outcomes correction should be used.

9- Outcomes. Time points (T1-6) should be consistent between primary and secondary outcomes. For example, timepoint T6 for primary outcome is equal to T4 for secondary outcome. Unclear, should be fixed.

10- Safety outcomes. Please report some major clinical outcomes. This should include in my opinion: mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admission, reintubation, and respiratory insufficiency.

11- Outcomes. Please specify when and where you assessed pain after extubation (in the PACU? 15 minutes after extubation?)

12- Sample size. You enrolled 100 patients, not 110 patients. 10 patients refused to participate.

13- Sample size. The statement “We recruited 55 patients per group to minimize the chance of insufficient power, in case the observed variability was higher than expected” is incorrect since you enrolled 100 patients.

14- Analysis. An intention to treat analysis (including n=100) should be also performed for at least major clinical outcomes. You should report why you did not use an ITT analysis.

15- All protocol changes should be reported in the manuscript and in the full form in the supplementary material, with reasons (see CONSORT checklist 3b)

16- Methods. Please report which drugs were used or not used, and if allowed in both groups. For example: ketamine, clonidine, dexmedethomidine, magnesium, dexamethasone or corticoids, local anesthetics surgical infiltration, PONV prophylaxis etc.

17-Figure 1. You screened 110 patients. Is it correct that no one met an exclusion criteria? There are errors?

18- Results. Does transfusion volume indicate blood transfusion or crystalloids? Unclear.

19- Discussion and Conclusions. You should report that you included only ASA 1-2, 18-65 years old, non-obese, patients. This do not allow the generalizability of the results.

20- Study limitations should also include: small sample size, change in primary and secondary outcomes.

21- English should be improved.

Minor comments:

1- Abstract, line 3 and 4. In order to improve clarity, it should read: “We assessed whether opioid-free anesthesia would provide effective analgesia-antinociception monitored by analgesia index in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.”

2- Abstract, line 11. It should read: “Secondary outcomes were depth of sedation monitoring by wavelet index and blood glucose concentration.”

3- What does “recovery time” and “extubation time” mean? Please improve clarity.

4- Results. Maybe the smoker status should be reported.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks for revising the manuscript and answering ti all the questions and doubts. Congratulations for the nice paper.

Reviewer #3: I read with great interest the study entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study ».

The authors have improved their manuscript by taking in account all comments.

Congrats

Reviewer #6: In the abstract, and throughout, refrain from using p>0.05 and <0.05 or 0.01. Use precise values to 1 or 2 significant figures.

Abstract: extra space in were.

Line 82: “patients were included after the investigators had explained the deviations from the protocol” surely there were no intended deviations from our original protocol? What is meant by this - the study protocol should have been adhered to?

Line 94: was the study design one of non inferiority? If so, what was the non inferiority margin? It looks like the sample size calculation was actually to detect a difference in groups of 6 units of PtI, but I don’t think that was the intention?

Line 164: dose rather than does

Line 169: began rather than begun.

Stats methods: was consideration given to using a mixed model?

What was the adjustment considered for so many tests done? For multiple testing does an adjustment need to be made?

Line 188: use “.” Before Clinical.

Table 1: wedge resection/lobectomy 7/40 is only 47 for OFA. What about the other 2?

And 2 people missing for sites of VATS?

Line 202 talks about repeated measures analysis. This wasn’t mentioned in the stats method section?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #6: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


22 Mar 2021

Here is our response to academic editors.

1. Comments. The manuscript should be conformed to all points reported in the CONSORT guidelines.

Author response: We are sorry that in the submitted manuscription, the format of the paper does not meet the requirements of the CONSORT guidelines. We have modified it in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines.

2. Comments: Title. I suggest to use a shorter, clearer and objective title, such as: “Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study”.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make title clearer and well reflect the content of the article. We have rewritten the title with yellow labels.

3. Comments: Abstract. The use of T1-2-3-4-5-6 time points are unclear. Readers should be able to understand the time points when reading the abstract. Please increase clarity. I suggest to avoid the use of these acronyms in the abstract.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper clearer and easier to understand. We have made changes in relevant places in the abstract marked with yellow.

4. Comments: Abstract. You should report that you included only ASA 1-2, 18-65 years old, non-obese, patients.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, which will make our paper clearer and more rigorous. We have made changes in relevant places in the abstract marked with yellow.

5. Comments: Methods. You registered the protocol at the end of the study (Date of Last Refreshed on:2020/7/5 22:02:01). This is a major limitation.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. Because the original protocol only said to detect arterial blood gas, we added the protocol on 2020/7/5, specifying that the blood gas detection items are PH, PaO2, lactic acid and blood glucose.

6. Comments: Registration. The study is registered on ChiCTR, not on clincialtrial. gov.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. For the clinical registration of this study, I consulted with the Scientific Research Department of our hospital and was informed that both https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ in the United States and http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx in China are both first-level registration platforms. And finally, we chose ChiCTR.

7. Comments: Primary outcomes. In the protocol (ChiCTR ) you reported 3 co-primary endpoints: pain evaluation, MAP, analgesic index, pain index. Please report in Methods why you changed the pre-defined outcome. All these outcome should be reported in the manuscript. This is a limitations to report in the discussion.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. In the end, we use the PTI as the only primary outcomes of this article, because this study mainly observes whether OFA can provide equivalent analgesia compared with traditional OA. According to the study protocol, we also recorded the intraoperative MAP and HR at different time points. We added MAP and HR data in the method and the results depending on your suggestions (Tab 3, Fig 2, marked with yellow). Pain index (PI range 0–100) is an objective and quantitative EEG pain assessment indicator developed. Its corresponding relationship with the VAS scale is as follows: (1) PI <10, no pain, corresponding to VAS scale 0–2; (2) PI = 10–15, pain threshold range, due to different individual pain thresholds, some people can feel pain, some people feel no pain, corresponding to VAS scale 3–4; (3) PI = 16–30, moderate pain, corresponding to VAS scale 5–7; (4) PI >30, severe pain, corresponding to VAS scale 8–10. PI can be used to objectively monitor the degree of pain in conscious patients after surgery. So, our paper does not have data on the pain index.

8. Comments: Secondary outcomes. In the protocol you reported as secondary outcomes: exhaust time, PONV, length of stay, PaO2, length of stay, lactic acid, pH, K, SpO2. Please report why you changed this pre-defined outcomes. Multiple outcomes correction should be used.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. According to the study protocol, we recorded the remove drainage tube time, dizzy, PONV, exhaust time, hospital discharge time, pH, SpO2 and PaO2. We added these items in the method and the results (Tab 2, Tab 4, Fig 3, yellow marked) depending on your suggestions. We found that some patients had hypokalemia before the operation, and this part of the patients received intravenous potassium chloride infusion, so we did not record intraoperative blood potassium value of blood gas.

9. Comments: Outcomes. Time points (T1-6) should be consistent between primary and secondary outcomes. For example, timepoint T6 for primary outcome is equal to T4 for secondary outcome. Unclear, should be fixed.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have redefined the collection time point of the primary outcomes and the secondary outcomes. The time points of PTI, BWI, MAP and HR were T1-6 (T1: baseline values, T2: 10min after dexmedetomidine infusion (1μg kg-1), T3: after intubation, T4: 30min after one lung ventilation, T5: both lungs ventilation, T6: 5 min after extubation). The time points of blood gas were T1-4 (T1: baseline values, T2: 1h after surgery begun, T3: 2h after surgery begun, T4: 5 min after extubation).

10.Comments:Safety outcomes. Please report some major clinical outcomes. This should include in my opinion: mortality, length of hospital stay, ICU admission, reintubation, and respiratory insufficiency.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion, we have added safety results in the results (see Tab 2 and Line272-274, marked with yellow).

11.Comments: Outcomes. Please specify when and where you assessed pain after extubation (in the PACU? 15 minutes after extubation?)

Author response: Sorry for not specifying the time point of T6 and T6. The time point of T6 and T6 are 5 minutes after extubation in the operation room (Lines: 182, 186; yellow marked).

12.Comments: Sample size. You enrolled 100 patients, not 110 patients. 10 patients refused to participate.

Author response: We are deeply sorry for the error and have made correction marked with yellow (Lines: 204-205).

13. Sample size. The statement “We recruited 55 patients per group to minimize the chance of insufficient power, in case the observed variability was higher than expected” is incorrect since you enrolled 100 patients.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. This description is indeed inappropriate, and we have deleted this sentence.

14.Comments: Analysis. An intention to treat analysis (including n=100) should be also performed for at least major clinical outcomes. You should report why you did not use an ITT analysis.

Author response: We do think this is good question. The purpose of this study is to test whether the depth of analgesia without opioid anesthesia is equivalent to that of opioid anesthesia. ITT analysis is more suitable for superiority experiments. Therefore, we excluded three patients in accordance with the experimental protocol, and collected data from 97 patients.

15.Comments: All protocol changes should be reported in the manuscript and in the full form in the supplementary material, with reasons (see CONSORT checklist 3b)

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. Since midazolam may affect the cognitive function of the elderly after surgery, we changed the experimental plan that all patients did not use midazolam before the induction of anesthesia. Before the patient signs the informed consent form, inform the patient of this change, and sign the informed consent form after the patient agrees (Lines: 97-99, marked with yellow). We have added those in the manuscript and in the protocol.

16.Comments: Methods. Please report which drugs were used or not used, and if allowed in both groups. For example: ketamine, clonidine, dexmedethomidine, magnesium, dexamethasone or corticoids, local anesthetics surgical infiltration, PONV prophylaxis etc.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. We add Table 1 according to the anesthesia plan and list the anesthetics involved in this study according to the anesthesia steps.

17.Comments: Figure 1. You screened 110 patients. Is it correct that no one met an exclusion criteria? There are errors?

Author response: We do think this is good question. 110 patients met the inclusion criteria and we have made it clear in the article marked with yellow.

18.Comments: Results. Does transfusion volume indicate blood transfusion or crystalloids? Unclear.

Author response: We do think this is good question. No blood transfusion in all patients during the operation. We have modified transfusion volumes in Table 1 to the fluid infusion volumes marked up yellow.

19.Comments: Discussion and Conclusions. You should report that you included only ASA 1-2, 18-65 years old, non-obese, patients. This do not allow the generalizability of the results.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper more rigorous. We have added only ASA 1-2, 18-65 years old, non-obese, patients in the discussion and conclusion section (Lines: 281, 396; marked with yellow).

20.Comments: Study limitations should also include: small sample size, change in primary and secondary outcomes.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper more rigorous. We have added small sample size, change in primary and secondary outcomes in the limitations (marked up yellow, Lines: 387-389)

Minor comments:

1.Comments: Abstract, line 3 and 4. In order to improve clarity, it should read: “We assessed whether opioid-free anesthesia would provide effective analgesia-antinociception monitored by analgesia index in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.”

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper more clarity. We have modified it.

2.Comments: Abstract, line 11. It should read: “Secondary outcomes were depth of sedation monitoring by wavelet index and blood glucose concentration.”

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, we have corrected it.

3.Comments: What does “recovery time” and “extubation time” mean? Please improve clarity.

Author response: We do think this is good question. We have explained the recovery time and extubation time in Table 1 in detail.

4.Comments: Results. Maybe the smoker status should be reported.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. Unfortunately, we did not record whether the patient had a history of smoking when collecting the data. When the 5-year follow-up of the patient’s survival, we will include whether the patient has a history of smoking. We appreciate your suggestion.

We should like to express our appreciation to you for suggesting how improve our paper.

List of Responses

Reviewer #6:

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

1. Comments:In the abstract, and throughout, refrain from using p>0.05 and <0.05 or 0.01. Use precise values to 1 or 2 significant figures.

Author response: We do think this is a good suggestion and have changed to a more precise p-value (yellow-marked; Lines: 15, 17, 20, 21).

2. Comments:Abstract: extra space in were.

Author response: We are deeply sorry for our incorrect writing and have made correction.

3. Comments:Line 82: “patients were included after the investigators had explained the deviations from the protocol” surely there were no intended deviations from our original protocol? What is meant by this - the study protocol should have been adhered to?

Author response: We do think this is a good question. To avoid the influence of midazolam on cognitive function of the elderly after surgery, we did not use midazolam before general anesthesia induction. Before the patient signs the informed consent form, inform the patient of this change, and sign the informed consent form after the patient agrees. Sorry for the misspelling and we have made correction “pregnant”.

4. Comments:Line 94: was the study design one of non inferiority? If so, what was the non inferiority margin? It looks like the sample size calculation was actually to detect a difference in groups of 6 units of PtI, but I don’t think that was the intention?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. The statistical consultant determined the non-inferiority margin of this study based on the mean and standard deviation of PTI in the pre-experimental, and the intraoperative range of PTI,so the non-inferiority margin for this study was determined to be 6.

5. Comments:Line 164: dose rather than does

Author response: We are sorry for our incorrect writing and have made correction “dose”.

6. Comments:Line 169: began rather than begun.

Author response: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing and have made correction “began.”

7. Comments:Stats methods: was consideration given to using a mixed model?

Author response: We do think this is a good question, we did not consider applying a mixed effects model. The statistical methods used in this study are based on relevant literature and consulting statistics professors.

1. P. Ziemann-Gimmel, A. A. Goldfarb, J. Koppman and R. T. Marema. Opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery beyond triple prophylaxis. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2014;112: 906–11

2. Uddalak Chattopadhyay, Suchismita Mallik, Sarmila Ghosh, Susmita Bhattacharya, Subrata Bisai, Hirak Biswas. Comparison between propofol and dexmedetomidine on depth of anesthesia: A prospective randomized trial. Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology; 2014; 30:550-554

3. Kaushic A. THEERTH , Kamath SRIGANESH, K. Madhusudan REDDY, Dhritiman CHAKRABARTI, Ganne S. UMAMAHESWARARAO. Analgesia Nociception Index-guided intraoperative fentanyl consumption and postoperative analgesia in patients receiving scalp block versus incision-site infiltration for craniotomy. Minerva Anestesiologica 2018; 84:1361-1368

8. Comments:What was the adjustment considered for so many tests done? For multiple testing does an adjustment need to be made?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. The PTI, WLI, MAP and HR measurement time points in this study are related to the surgical procedure, and the blood gas collection time point is related to the operation time. Intraoperative adjustments are all adjusted by the anesthesiologist's judgment.

9. Comments:Line 188: use “.” Before Clinical.

Author response: Thank you for pointing these out, we have corrected it.

10. Comments:Table 1: wedge resection/lobectomy 7/40 is only 47 for OFA. What about the other 2? And 2 people missing for sites of VATS?

Author response: Thank you for pointing these out, it is ours mistake. In the OFA group, one patient underwent left lower lobe resection and upper lobe wedge resection, and one patient underwent right upper lobe resection and lower lobe wedge resection, so they are not counted. We have made revisions and re-statistical analysis (see Tab 2, marked-yellow).

11. Comments: Line 202 talks about repeated measures analysis. This wasn’t mentioned in the stats method section?

Author response: We do think these are good questions. We have marked in yellow in the method section “Within and between-group comparisons of either PTI, WLI, MAP and HR at six time points and PaO2, lactic acid levels and blood glucose concentrations at four time points were performed using repeated measurement analysis of variance.”

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter 2.0.docx

Decision Letter 2

Alessandro Putzu

11 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R2

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Editor Comments:

Thank you for your further work on this manuscript. A number of issues have been identified in the review process. While we feel that this manuscript shows promise, we also think that major revisions are needed. Before we can make a final decision about this manuscript we want to offer you the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

Major comments:

1. Methods, page 5, “Eligible patients were included after investigator had explained the deviations from our original protocol and obtained informed consent form signed by the patient.”. What does this sentence mean? Did you explain which kind of deviations to whom? Please improve clarity.

2. Methods, page 6, “Before the patient signs the informed consent form, inform the patient of this change, and sign the informed consent form after the patient agrees.”. What does this sentence mean? What is the change you are talking about? Please improve clarity.

3. Page 6, “Since midazolam may affect the cognitive function of the elderly after surgery, we changed the experimental plan that all patients did not use midazolam before the induction of anesthesia”. This statement is of limited significance and importance since you included patients 18-65 years old

4. Page 6, “To facilitate the emergency treatment of patients during the operation, the anesthesiologists who did not participate in the assessment of the patients at any time were aware of the protocol”. This sentence is unclear and should be improved.

5. Page 6, line 105-106. Details on number of enrolled patients should be reported only in the Results. Please remove this detail from the methods.

6. Table 1. What Namefen is? Was it used only in OA group? Why? Please improve clarity and insert a reference on this drug.

7. Primary outcomes. The protocol reported different primary and secondary outcomes. Please report in methods why you changed the pre-defined outcomes. These are limitations to report in the discussion.

8. Major protocol changes should be reported in the manuscript and in the full form in the supplementary material, with reasons (see CONSORT checklist 3b).

9. Outcomes. Time points (T1-6) are unclear, since are similar for DPI and blood gas analyses outcomes. I suggest to use: PTI0 (=baseline), PTI1…PTI5.For blood gas analysis (BGA) I suggest: BGA0 (=baseline), BGA1…BGA4.

10. You registered the protocol at the end of the study (Date of Last Refreshed on:2020/7/5 22:02:01; date of first version: 2020/7/1 0:47:36). This is a major limitation and must be reported in the Abstract, Methods and Discussion. In the discussion a paragraph should be dedicated to discuss the limitations on protocol registration and change in primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence should be downgraded due to this major limitations. Results should be discussed as exploratory. Conclusions should be tempered.

11. Authors decided not to employ a ITT analysis. I suggest to insert ITT data on safety (mortality, postoperative complications). The lack of an ITT analysis is a major limitation that should be reported in the discussion.

12. Statistical analysis. What was the adjustment considered for so many tests done? For multiple testing does an adjustment need to be made?

13. Results and CONSORT flow diagram. You said that 110 patients met inclusion criteria, but you assessed for eligibility much more than 110 patients. How many patients met exclusion criteria? This data should be reported (Not meeting inclusion criteria n=X, Declined to participate n=X, Other reasons n=X ).

14. What is exhaust time? Please improve clarity.

15. The English must be improved. I suggest to ask for professional help.

Minor comments:

1. Page 5, “The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR 1800019479).”. It should read: “The study was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 1800019479).”.

2. Please expand TPVB the first time you used it.

3. Methods. The “Power analysis and sample size calculation” paragraph should be moved below, before statistical analysis paragraph.

4. “dizzy” should probably reads “dizziness”

5. CONSORT diagram. You should report reason of discontinuation of intervention.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thanks to the authors for their replies to all the comments. They have addressed all the issues and the manuscript in now much improved.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all comments of the reviewers 5 and 6. I do not have supplementary comments.

Reviewer #6: Thanks for the revisions to the paper. Many improvements were made, but there are still some points to clarify.

1. Pg 6. Line 100 (track changed version) I feel the statistical sample size calculation text in the manuscript does not adequately match with the words in the response to reviewers.

2. There is now more of a mismatch between 88 pts and 100 pts. Please explain.

3. The 10 patients who refused to participate - did they do so before or after randomisation? If so, say so, and specify the usual time frame between registration/ agreeing to participate and randomisation. This process needs further clarity.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #6: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


11 May 2021

Here is our response to academic editors.

Major comments:

1. Comments. Methods, page 5, “Eligible patients were included after investigator had explained the deviations from our original protocol and obtained informed consent form signed by the patient.”. What does this sentence mean? Did you explain which kind of deviations to whom? Please improve clarity.

Author response: Thank you for point this out which will make paper clearer. We have rewritten the participant eligibility and consent of method, see Lines 86-89 with yellow labels.

2. Comments. Methods, page 6, “Before the patient signs the informed consent form, inform the patient of this change, and sign the informed consent form after the patient agrees.”. What does this sentence mean? What is the change you are talking about? Please improve clarity.

Author response: Thank you for point this out which will make paper clearer. We have rewritten the participant eligibility and consent of method, see Lines 86-89 with yellow labels.

3. Comments. Page 6, “Since midazolam may affect the cognitive function of the elderly after surgery, we changed the experimental plan that all patients did not use midazolam before the induction of anesthesia”. This statement is of limited significance and importance since you included patients 18-65 years old

Author response: Thank you for point this out. It has been reported that midazolam is related to postoperative delirium. Our clinical observations showed that even if it is not for elderly patients with delirium after thoracic surgery, the effect of midazolam cannot be ruled out. Therefore, midazolam is no longer used before anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic surgery in our hospital. We have rewritten the participant eligibility and consent of method, see Lines 86-89 with yellow labels.

4. Comments. Page 6, “To facilitate the emergency treatment of patients during the operation, the anesthesiologists who did not participate in the assessment of the patients at any time were aware of the protocol”. This sentence is unclear and should be improved.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten the sentence, see Lines 114 with yellow labels.

5. Comments. Page 6, line 105-106. Details on number of enrolled patients should be reported only in the Results. Please remove this detail from the methods.

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions. We have deleted the details on number of enrolled patients (Lines: 109-110).

6. Comments. Table 1. What Namefen is? Was it used only in OA group? Why? Please improve clarity and insert a reference on this drug.

Author response: We do think this is a good question.

Nalmefene is a mu, kappa, alpha opioid receptor blocker, especially has a strong affinity for mu receptors. Nalmefene has a long action time, high bioavailability and few side effects. Clinically, nalmefene can inhibit or reverse the respiratory depression, sedation and hypotension effects of opioids (Chen Yingqi, Yue Yun, Qing Enming, et al. Nalmefene antagonizes the effect of opioid postoperative respiratory depression-a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, positive drug control study. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology, 2011,31(3):307-309)

Jia reported that low-dose nalmefene prevents remifentanil-induced postoperative hyperalgesia in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia (Jia Zhen, Chen Yi, Zhang Linlin, et al. The effect of different low-dose nalmefene in preventing postoperative hyperalgesia induced by remifentanil. Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology, 2017, 37(10): 1159-1162.)

Yes, only patients in group OA received nalmefene to reverse the respiratory depression of opioids. We have insert reference on nalmefene in table 1.

7. Comments. Primary outcomes. The protocol reported different primary and secondary outcomes. Please report in methods why you changed the pre-defined outcomes. These are limitations to report in the discussion.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We added these items in the method and the discussion (Lines:190-195, 398-401, yellow marked) depending on your suggestions.

8. Comments. Major protocol changes should be reported in the manuscript and in the full form in the supplementary material, with reasons (see CONSORT checklist 3b).

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. Since midazolam midazolam is related to the occurrence of delirium in patients after surgery, the administration of midazolam before anesthesia was cancelled. The eligible patient was informed that they aren’t received midazolam and signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant (Lines: 86-89, marked with yellow). We have added those in the method.

9. Comments. Outcomes. Time points (T1-6) are unclear, since are similar for DPI and blood gas analyses outcomes. I suggest to use: PTI0 (=baseline), PTI1…PTI5.For blood gas analysis (BGA) I suggest: BGA0 (=baseline), BGA1…BGA4.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper clearer and easier to understand. We have made changes in relevant places in the manuscript marked with yellow.

10. Comments. You registered the protocol at the end of the study (Date of Last Refreshed on:2020/7/5 22:02:01; date of first version: 2020/7/1 0:47:36). This is a major limitation and must be reported in the Abstract, Methods and Discussion. In the discussion a paragraph should be dedicated to discuss the limitations on protocol registration and change in primary outcomes. The certainty of evidence should be downgraded due to this major limitations. Results should be discussed as exploratory. Conclusions should be tempered.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. Because the original protocol only said to detect arterial blood gas, we added the protocol on 2020/7/5, specifying that the blood gas detection items are PH, PaO2, lactic acid and blood glucose.

We only applied to modify the protocol once, that is, we submitted an application to modify the protocol at 0:7 on 1/7/2020, and the webmaster replied to agree to the modification at 0:47 on 1/7/2020. After seeing your question, I checked the record, and indeed there were two revision records on 1/7/2020 and 5/7/2020, which made us very confused. After we contacted the webmaster, he replied that it might be a mistake in the website record, because the contents of the two records are exactly the same and the reason maybe the website passed our revision on 5/7/2020.

We have added change in primary and secondary outcomes in the limitations (marked up yellow, Lines: 398-403)

11. Comments. Authors decided not to employ a ITT analysis. I suggest to insert ITT data on safety (mortality, postoperative complications). The lack of an ITT analysis is a major limitation that should be reported in the discussion.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. The ITT analysis included all randomized patients to fully observe the effect of the intervention. Unfortunately, we did not follow up the excluded patients. We have added the limitation of lack of the ITT analysis in the discussion (Lines: 401-403, marked with yellow).

12. Comments. Statistical analysis. What was the adjustment considered for so many tests done? For multiple testing does an adjustment need to be made?

Author response: We do think this is good question. In our study, we have just compared the PTI value at different time points (PTI1-PTI5) to the PTI basic value at PTI0 with ANOVA, and the PTI values in OFA group to those in OA group value at the same time point with t-test, we did not make adjustment. As multiple testing, we only focus on the difference between the two groups, so we did not perform adjustment such as Bonferroni correction or FDR correction.

13. Comments. Results and CONSORT flow diagram. You said that 110 patients met inclusion criteria, but you assessed for eligibility much more than 110 patients. How many patients met exclusion criteria? This data should be reported (Not meeting inclusion criteria n=X, Declined to participate n=X, Other reasons n=X ).

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. From November 2018 to March 2019, we included 222 patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy. Among them, 35 were due to age > 65 years, 10 were due to BMI > 30%, and 5 had history of alcohol, 62 people had cardiopulmonary insufficiency, and 10 people refused to participate in the experiment. Eventually 100 participants entered the experiment. We have modified the relevant content, see Fig 1 and Lines 216.

14. Comments. What is exhaust time? Please improve clarity.

Author response: We do think this is good question. In the ward, the patient was asked the time from returning to the ward to the first fart. If the duration is less than 24h, it is recorded 1 day; 24h-48h is 2 days, 48h-72h is 3 days, and so on. We have added an explanation of the exhaust time (Lines: 235-237).

15. Comments. The English must be improved. I suggest to ask for professional help.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. We have found a professional editing agency to modify the abstract, introduction and discussion parts of the article, and submit the receipt as an attachment. The methods and results of this article have been modified by high-level English users.

Minor comments:

1. Comments. Page 5, “The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (ChiCTR 1800019479).”. It should read: “The study was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR 1800019479).”.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper more clarity. We have modified it.

2. Comments. Please expand TPVB the first time you used it.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, we have corrected it at Page 2 and Liens 9 .

3. Comments. Methods. The “Power analysis and sample size calculation” paragraph should be moved below, before statistical analysis paragraph.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, we have corrected it.

4. Comments. “dizzy” should probably reads “dizziness”

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, we agree that the expression of dizziness is more professional, and we have corrected it (Table 2).

5. Comments. CONSORT diagram. You should report reason of discontinuation of intervention.

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, we have corrected it.

We should like to express our appreciation to you for suggesting how improve our paper.

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your letter and for the comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Lower sedation index and raised blood glucose with opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled study” (PONE-D-20-27554). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion were marked in yellow in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responses to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #6: Thanks for the revisions to the paper. Many improvements were made, but there are still some points to clarify.

1. Comments: Pg 6. Line 100 (track changed version) I feel the statistical sample size calculation text in the manuscript does not adequately match with the words in the response to reviewers.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. This description is indeed inappropriate, and we have made changes (Lines 201-202, marked with yellow).

2. Comments:There is now more of a mismatch between 88 pts and 100 pts. Please explain.

Author response: We do think this is a good question. With a level of significance 0.05, a power 0.9, true difference 6 and SD 10, each group should include 44 patients. Considering that the postoperative follow-up was in the ward before discharge, the dropout rate was determined to be 10%-20%. The statistical instructor of this experiment considered that a sample size of 100 is acceptable.

3. Comments:The 10 patients who refused to participate - did they do so before or after randomisation? If so, say so, and specify the usual time frame between registration/ agreeing to participate and randomisation. This process needs further clarity.

Author response: We do think this is a good question. From November 2018 to March 2019, we included 222 patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy. Among them, 35 were due to age > 65 years, 10 were due to BMI > 30%, and 5 had history of alcohol, 62 people had cardiopulmonary insufficiency, and 10 people refused to participate in the experiment. Eventually 100 participants entered the experiment. We have modified the relevant content, see Fig 1 and Lines 216.

Therefore, 110 patients refer to the composite inclusion criteria, and there are no exclusion factors. Patients who refused to participate in the experiment were not included in the experiment. Eligible patients who agree to participate in the experiment will receive a sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (Lines:111-112).

Once again, Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-3.docx

Decision Letter 3

Alessandro Putzu

27 May 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R3

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are still several minor improvements to be performed (see below).  The language quality must be improved. We advise that you seek assistance from a colleague or have a professional editing service.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your further work on this manuscript which now makes a fine contribution to consideration of this important topic. There are still several minor improvements to be performed.

1. You should insert authors contributions (see PLOS One guidelines)

2. I suggest to use a structured abstract (not exceeding 300 words)

3. Abstract. You should cite the EEG monitoring system in the abstract.

4. Abstract. The TPVB abbreviation should be removed from the abstract.

5. Abstract, line 20-24. It should read: “This study showed that our OFA regimen achieved equally effective intraoperative pain threshold index compared to OA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Depth of sedation was significantly lower and blood glucose levels were higher with OFA.”

6. Introduction, line 39. It should read: “…respiratory depression [3], postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) [4] as well as postoperative delirium…”

7. Methods, trial design, line 85-88. This paragraph should be removed: “Because midazolam is associated with postoperative delirium, midazolam is no longer used before anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic surgery in our hospital. The eligible patient was informed that they are not received midazolam and signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.”

8. Methods, allocation and blinding, line 97. You should not report results in the methods. It should read: “Patients were randomized in two groups (group OA and group OFA) using computer-generated random numbers (Excel® version 16)”

9. Methods, Anesthetic management protocol, page 8, line 140-141. It should read: “Sevoflurane was adjusted to maintain anesthesia. The use of midazolam was avoided. The patients were maintained on mechanical ventilation to keep the ….”

10. Methods, outcomes, page 10, line 183. Exhaust time should be defined

11. Methods, outcomes, page 10, line 185-190. The English of the paragraph should be improved.

12. Results, page 14, line 283-284. This sentence should be improved “No patient died, was transferred to ICU and respiratory dysfunction, and no patient was intubated again after the tracheal intubation was removed”. If judged correct, it should read: “No patient was transferred to the ICU, had respiratory insufficiency, need reintubation, or died during the follow-up”.

13. Discussion, first paragraph, line 290-295. It should read: “This prospective randomized study showed that our OFA regimen could provide equally adequate intraoperative analgesia-nociception balance in non-obese, 18-65 years old, ASA I-II patients compared to opioid based anesthesia guided by PTI monitoring in patients undergoing VATS. However, in group OFA, the intraoperative depth of sedation was deeper, and the blood glucose levels were higher, than those levels in patients with OA.”

14. Discussion, line 312-313. Ij judged correct, it should read: “…sevoflurane and TPVB were used in our study to replace opioids[26].”

15. Discussion, page 16, line 332. It should read: “…postoperatively improved pain relief (especially pain on coughing) up to 48 h….”

16. Discussion, page 17, line 358. It should read: “Our results suggested that, in patients under non-opioid anesthesia…”

17. Discussion, page 19, limitations paragraph, line 391. It should read: “Fourth, our study was a single-institution study, small sample size, and some protocol amendments were performed. More in details, no data on PI were reported since PI can be only used in conscious patients and the serum potassium concentration was not recorded, because some patients were given potassium supplementation, which potentially results in a selection bias. Fifth, we cannot perform an intention-to-treat analysis including the 3 patients excluded after randomization since we did not follow up these patients. Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term benefits of the avoidance of opioid use in lung cancer patients, as well as to assess the benefits of increasing survival.”

18. Conclusions, line 402-405. It should read: “OFA with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane plus TPVB appears to be feasible for the management of intraoperative nociception in ASA I-II, 18-65 years old, non-obese patients undergoing VATS for lung cancer. However, a deeper sedation level was produced in OFA than in OA for the achievement of an optimal balance of analgesia-nociception.”

19. Manuscript. The language quality must be improved. We advise that you seek assistance from a colleague or have a professional editing service.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #6: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


18 Jun 2021

1. Comments. You should insert authors contributions (see PLOS One guidelines)

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have inserted author contributions in title page and submitted online.

2. Comments. I suggest to use a structured abstract (not exceeding 300 words)

Author response: We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the comment, we have converted the abstract into a structured abstract, see abstract with yellow labels.

3. Comments. Abstract. You should cite the EEG monitoring system in the abstract.

Author response: We agree with your comment. We have added the EEG monitoring system in the abstract, see Lines 14-15 with yellow labels.

4. Comments. Abstract. The TPVB abbreviation should be removed from the abstract.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have removed the TPVB abbreviation from the abstract, see Lines 11 with yellow labels.

5. Comments. Abstract, line 20-24. It should read: “This study showed that our OFA regimen achieved equally effective intraoperative pain threshold index compared to OA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Depth of sedation was significantly lower and blood glucose levels were higher with OFA.”

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise (Lines: 27-31, marked with yellow).

6. Comments. Introduction, line 39. It should read: “…respiratory depression [3], postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) [4] as well as postoperative delirium…”

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added ‘postoperative’ in lines 47 and marked with yellow.

7. Comments. Methods, trial design, line 85-88. This paragraph should be removed: “Because midazolam is associated with postoperative delirium, midazolam is no longer used before anesthesia in patients undergoing thoracic surgery in our hospital. The eligible patient was informed that they are not received midazolam and signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.”

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have deleted the paragraph (Lines:95-98, yellow marked), and added the sentence “The eligible patient signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.” (Lines:106-107, yellow marked).

8. Comments. Methods, allocation and blinding, line 97. You should not report results in the methods. It should read: “Patients were randomized in two groups (group OA and group OFA) using computer-generated random numbers (Excel® version 16)”

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion. We have corrected it, see line 110.

9. Comments. Methods, Anesthetic management protocol, page 8, line 140-141. It should read: “Sevoflurane was adjusted to maintain anesthesia. The use of midazolam was avoided. The patients were maintained on mechanical ventilation to keep the ….”

Author response: We do think this is excellent suggestion. We have made changes in relevant places in the manuscript marked with yellow, line 156-157.

10. Comments. Methods, outcomes, page 10, line 183. Exhaust time should be defined

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the definition of exhaust time (Lines: 191, marked in yellow).

11. Comments. Methods, outcomes, page 10, line 185-190. The English of the paragraph should be improved.

Author response: We apologize for the language problems in the manuscript. Language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background (Lines: 193-203, marked with yellow).

12. Comments. Results, page 14, line 283-284. This sentence should be improved “No patient died, was transferred to ICU and respiratory dysfunction, and no patient was intubated again after the tracheal intubation was removed”. If judged correct, it should read: “No patient was transferred to the ICU, had respiratory insufficiency, need reintubation, or died during the follow-up”.

Author response: Our deepest gratitude goes to you for your careful work and thoughtful suggestions that have helped improve this paper substantially (Lines: 303-307, marked with yellow).

13. Comments. Discussion, first paragraph, line 290-295. It should read: “This prospective randomized study showed that our OFA regimen could provide equally adequate intraoperative analgesia-nociception balance in non-obese, 18-65 years old, ASA I-II patients compared to opioid based anesthesia guided by PTI monitoring in patients undergoing VATS. However, in group OFA, the intraoperative depth of sedation was deeper, and the blood glucose levels were higher, than those levels in patients with OA.”

Author response: Thank you for your precious comments and advice. The comment is all valuable and extremely helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, see line 313-318and yellow-marked.

14. Comments. Discussion, line 312-313. Ij judged correct, it should read: “…sevoflurane and TPVB were used in our study to replace opioids[26].”

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have re-written this sentence (Lines: 340, yellow-marked).

15. Comments. Discussion, page 16, line 332. It should read: “…postoperatively improved pain relief (especially pain on coughing) up to 48 h….”

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have rewritten this sentence (Lines: 359-361, marked with yellow).

16. Comments. Discussion, page 17, line 358. It should read: “Our results suggested that, in patients under non-opioid anesthesia…”

Author response: We do think this is good suggestion, which will make our paper more clarity. We have modified it (Lines: 389, marked with yellow).

17. Comments. Discussion, page 19, limitations paragraph, line 391. It should read: “Fourth, our study was a single-institution study, small sample size, and some protocol amendments were performed. More in details, no data on PI were reported since PI can be only used in conscious patients and the serum potassium concentration was not recorded, because some patients were given potassium supplementation, which potentially results in a selection bias. Fifth, we cannot perform an intention-to-treat analysis including the 3 patients excluded after randomization since we did not follow up these patients. Further studies will be needed to assess the long-term benefits of the avoidance of opioid use in lung cancer patients, as well as to assess the benefits of increasing survival.”

Author response: Thank you very much for revising this part. You have given me a more rigorous understanding of English wording and sentence making. According to your comment, we have rewritten this part, see line 425-437 and marked with yellow.

18. Comments. Conclusions, line 402-405. It should read: “OFA with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane plus TPVB appears to be feasible for the management of intraoperative nociception in ASA I-II, 18-65 years old, non-obese patients undergoing VATS for lung cancer. However, a deeper sedation level was produced in OFA than in OA for the achievement of an optimal balance of analgesia-nociception.”

Author response: Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the suggestion (Lines:440-442, marked with yellow).

19. Comments. Manuscript. The language quality must be improved. We advise that you seek assistance from a colleague or have a professional editing service.

Author response: Thank you for your careful review. We are deeply sorry for the inconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by a native English speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. The modified details have been marked in yellow.

20. Comments. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Author response: Thank you for your reminder, we have re-checked the references, and the changes are marked in yellow.

Note: The authors of this article, Nuoya Chen and Bingsha Zhao, have moved to Hengshui People’s Hospital and Tianjin Chest Hospital due to their job changes. We have revised their current addresses (see Title page),

Thank you for your careful review. We really appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We wish good health to you, your family, and community. Your careful review has helped to make our study clearer and more comprehensive.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-4.docx

Decision Letter 4

Alessandro Putzu

22 Jun 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R4

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The text needs some further corrections. Clarity and English should be improved. I suggest to ask for professional help; the language editing certificate is old (Date: 16-Feb-2021),

You find several corrections and comments in the attached file. Please open it with Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 06 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments_PONE-D-20-27554_R4.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r010

Author response to Decision Letter 4


17 Jul 2021

Major comments:

1. Comments. Please add a reference. A good quality review on the topic (analgesia monitoring) would be of the great interest for the reader (Lines 69-71).

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have inserted a review [17] in line 71 on analgesic index monitoring (Thomas Ledowski. Objective monitoring of nociception: a review of current commercial solutions. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2019;123 (2): e312ee321).

2. Comments. This is unclear (Lines 177). Clarity should be improved. "First exhaust" should be replaced.

Author response: We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the comment, we have improved the exhaust time which is the time from returning to the ward to the patient complaining of the first breaking wind (Lines: 179-180).

3. Comments. The reason is different that reasin in Figure 1 caption. Please modify (Lines 211-212).

Author response: Sorry for our negligence. We have modified the reasons for exclusion from the analysis in Figure 1and marked with yellow.

4. Comments. It is unclear (Lines: 288-292). English and clarity should be improved.

Author response: Thank you for your careful review. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised and rewritten by Elsevier Language Editing, we hope it can meet the journal’s standard. The modified details have been marked in yellow (Lines:290-295).

5. Comments. This is a repetition of the first paragraph (Lines: 293-295)?

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. We have improved this paragraph (Lines: 296-297, marked with yellow).

6. Comments. This long paragraph should be shortened. Clarity should be improved (Lines: 354-378).

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. We have abbreviated this part in lines 360-386 and marked with yellow.

7. Comments. The strict inclusion criteria and study's limitations limit may limit the external validity of the study (Lines: 404).

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have rewritten the sentence as We pay more attention to the changes in blood glucose levels of diabetic patients with OFA (Lines:413-414, yellow marked).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-5.docx

Decision Letter 5

Alessandro Putzu

20 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R5

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for the improvements and the great work on the study. There are still some minor corrections to perform.

Here you find my suggestions:

1- Abstract, page 2, line 18-19. It should read: “One hundred patients were randomized: 3 patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention and 97 included in the final analysis”.

2- Abstract, page 3, line 23. It should read: “… the blood glucose levels in group OFA increased by 20% compared”

3- Abstract, conclusions. There is an error and information on limitations should be reported. It should read: “This study suggested that an OFA regimen achieved equally effective intraoperative pain threshold index compared to OA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Depth of sedation and blood glucose levels were higher with OFA. Study's limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.”

4- Page 5, line 71. It should read: “A variety of analgesia monitors have been developed to determine the depth of pain during surgery [17].”

5- Page 6, line 92-99. It should read: “We included patients with ASA physical status I or II, aged 18-65 years who were scheduled for elective thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy; breastfeeding; allergy to any experimental drug or its excipients; β-blockers therapy and HR <50 bpm; body mass index (BMI) more than 30 kg m−2; central nervous system diseases (such as epilepsy, cerebral infarction, or cerebral hemorrhage history); and history of chronic pain, alcohol, or drug abuse. The eligible patients signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.”

5- Figure 1. The name of each group is missing in the figure. Please report OFA et OA labels.

6-Figure 1. Reasons for exclusions are reported twice (in the figure and in the caption). Please remove reasons for exclusion from figure caption. It should read: “Fig. 1 – Study flow diagram. OFA, opioid-free anesthesia; OA, opioid anesthesia”

7- Page 11, line 213-216. It should read: “Three patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention: 1 case turned to open surgery, 1 peripheral venous catheter slid out during surgery, 1 patient needed re-exploration for postoperative intra-thoracic bleeding on postoperative day 1. Outcomes of these patients were not recorded in the postoperative period. The remaining 97 patients were included in the final analysis (Fig 1).”

8- Exhaust time definition is still unclear. “The time from returning to the ward to the patient complaining of the first breaking wind” is totally unclear. Clarity should be improved.

9- Page 15, line 303-304. It should read: “…of OFA for patients under general anesthesia.”

10- Page 20, line 396-397. It should read: “Fourth, our research is a study a single-institution study, with a small sample size”.

11- Page 20, conclusions. It should read: “OFA with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane plus TPVB seems to be feasible for the management of intraoperative nociception in ASA I-II, 18-65-years old, non-obese patients undergoing VATS for lung cancer. However, a deeper sedation level was produced in OFA than in OA for the achievement of an optimal balance of analgesia-nociception. A significant elevation in blood glucose levels in OFA group was also found. Study's limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r012

Author response to Decision Letter 5


22 Jul 2021

1. Comments. Abstract, page 2, line 18-19. It should read: “One hundred patients were randomized: 3 patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention and 97 included in the final analysis”.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have rewritten this sentence, line 17-19 and marked with yellow.

2. Comments. Abstract, page 3, line 23. It should read: “… the blood glucose levels in group OFA increased by 20% compared”

Author response: We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the comment, we have changed ascend to increased (Lines: 24, marked with yellow).

3. Comments. Abstract, conclusions. There is an error and information on limitations should be reported. It should read: “This study suggested that an OFA regimen achieved equally effective intraoperative pain threshold index compared to OA in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Depth of sedation and blood glucose levels were higher with OFA. Study's limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.”

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. We have added “Study's limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic” (Lines 30-32 and marked with yellow).

4. Comments. Page 5, line 71. It should read: “A variety of analgesia monitors have been developed to determine the depth of pain during surgery [17].”

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. The modified details have been marked in yellow (Lines:67).

5. Comments. Page 6, line 92-99. It should read: “We included patients with ASA physical status I or II, aged 18-65 years who were scheduled for elective thoracoscopic radical resection of lung cancer. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy; breastfeeding; allergy to any experimental drug or its excipients; β-blockers therapy and HR <50 bpm; body mass index (BMI) more than 30 kg m−2; central nervous system diseases (such as epilepsy, cerebral infarction, or cerebral hemorrhage history); and history of chronic pain, alcohol, or drug abuse. The eligible patients signed a written informed consent form after obtaining the consent of the participant.”

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. We have improved this paragraph (Lines: 89-97, marked with yellow).

6. Comments. Figure 1. The name of each group is missing in the figure. Please report OFA et OA labels.

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions. We have added label of OFA and label of OA (Lines 222-223 and marked with yellow).

7. Comments. Figure 1. Reasons for exclusions are reported twice (in the figure and in the caption). Please remove reasons for exclusion from figure caption. It should read: “Fig. 1 – Study flow diagram. OFA, opioid-free anesthesia; OA, opioid anesthesia”

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have rewritten the sentence (Lines:219-223, yellow marked).

8. Comments: Page 11, line 213-216. It should read: “Three patients were excluded due to discontinued intervention: 1 case turned to open surgery, 1 peripheral venous catheter slid out during surgery, 1 patient needed re-exploration for postoperative intra-thoracic bleeding on postoperative day 1. Outcomes of these patients were not recorded in the postoperative period. The remaining 97 patients were included in the final analysis (Fig 1).”

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have rewritten the sentence (Lines:212-216, yellow marked).

9. Comments: Exhaust time definition is still unclear. “The time from returning to the ward to the patient complaining of the first breaking wind” is totally unclear. Clarity should be improved.

Author response: We are grateful for the suggestion. Since the patients in this study were sent back to the ward about 10min-20min after the tracheal tube was removed, the exhaust time was recorded from returning to the ward to the first breaking wind.

To be more clearly and in accordance with the comment, we have changed the exhaust time from the end of the operation to the first breaking wind (Lines: 179, 232 and marked with yellow).

10. Comments: Page 15, line 303-304. It should read: “…of OFA for patients under general anesthesia.”

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected the sentence (Lines:299, yellow marked).

11. Comments: Page 20, line 396-397. It should read: “Fourth, our research is a study a single-institution study, with a small sample size”.

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have corrected the sentence (Lines:383, yellow marked).

12. Comments: 11- Page 20, conclusions. It should read: “OFA with dexmedetomidine and sevoflurane plus TPVB seems to be feasible for the management of intraoperative nociception in ASA I-II, 18-65-years old, non-obese patients undergoing VATS for lung cancer. However, a deeper sedation level was produced in OFA than in OA for the achievement of an optimal balance of analgesia-nociception. A significant elevation in blood glucose levels in OFA group was also found. Study's limitations and strict inclusion criteria may limit the external validity of the study, suggesting the need of further randomized trials on the topic.”

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. We have improved this paragraph (Lines: 396-404, marked with yellow).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-6.docx

Decision Letter 6

Alessandro Putzu

27 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R6

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 10 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. Exhaust time is not an appropriate english medical term; you should change it. What does it mean? Do you mean " Time to passage of flatus and stool"? "Time to passage of flatus"? " Time to passage of stool"? Please modify

2. The details in Figure 1 are still missing (see PDF). You should include the denomination of each group.

3. Some other modifications are reported in the PDF attached.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: AP_PONE-D-20-27554_R6.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r014

Author response to Decision Letter 6


1 Aug 2021

1. Comments. Exhaust time is not an appropriate english medical term; you should change it. What does it mean? Do you mean " Time to passage of flatus and stool"? "Time to passage of flatus"? " Time to passage of stool"? Please modify.

Author response: We do think these are excellent suggestions which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. Anal exhaust is one of the indications of postoperative intestinal function recovery. The anal exhaust time was defined from the end of operation to the first spontaneous breaking wind event (Lines: 176-177, 228-229, Table 2, marked with yellow).

2. Comments. The details in Figure 1 are still missing (see PDF). You should include the denomination of each group.

Author response: Sorry for the omission in Figure 1, we have added denomination of each group (Figure 1).

3. Comments. Some other modifications are reported in the PDF attached.

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have made modifications according to the annotations in the PDF and marked with yellow.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-7.docx

Decision Letter 7

Alessandro Putzu

16 Aug 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R7

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

1. “ Anal exhaust time” is not a current appropriate English medical term. Please use "Time to passage of flatus"

2. I received a comment from Staff Editor. There are some deviations between the protocol, registry entry, and the manuscript. This it should be further explained by the authors. You can add the detailed list of protocol changes in the supplementary material. Most important changes should be reported in the methods. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact plosone@plos.org.

3. You should review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct, as reported above. No retracted manuscript should be cited.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Sep 23;16(9):e0257279. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257279.r016

Author response to Decision Letter 7


22 Aug 2021

1. Comments. “Anal exhaust time” is not a current appropriate English medical term. Please use "Time to passage of flatus".

Author response: We do think this is excellent suggestion which makes the manuscript more rigorous and concise. Thank you very much for pointing out our unprofessional use of words. The time to passage of flatus you provided is a standard expression. (Lines: 176-177, 229-230, Table 2, marked with yellow).

2. Comments. I received a comment from Staff Editor. There are some deviations between the protocol, registry entry, and the manuscript. This it should be further explained by the authors. You can add the detailed list of protocol changes in the supplementary material. Most important changes should be reported in the methods. If you have any queries or need any help, please contact plosone@plos.org.

Author response: Sorry for the inconvenience caused by the protocol changes. We summarize the changes in this research protocol in a table and submit it as a supplement (S File 9). The intraoperative PI and serum potassium are important changes that are not recorded. We explain the reasons and write them in the method and discussion section of the manuscript (Lines: 180-186, 385-387 and marked with yellow).

3. Comments. You should review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct, as reported above. No retracted manuscript should be cited.

Author response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have made modifications according to Plos One's reference requirements and marked with yellow.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-8.docx

Decision Letter 8

Alessandro Putzu

31 Aug 2021

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

PONE-D-20-27554R8

Dear Dr. Zhao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Thank you for your further work on this manuscript which now makes a fine contribution to consideration of this important topic.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Alessandro Putzu

15 Sep 2021

PONE-D-20-27554R8

Opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid anesthesia for lung cancer patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled study

Dear Dr. Zhao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alessandro Putzu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. CONSORT checklist.

    (DOC)

    S1 File. Study protocol-English.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Study protocol-original.

    (DOCX)

    S3 File. Protocol change.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter 2.0.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-3.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-4.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Comments_PONE-D-20-27554_R4.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-5.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-6.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: AP_PONE-D-20-27554_R6.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-7.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal Letter-8.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES