This review aims to provide an evidence-based overview of opioid-free analgesia (OFA) as an emerging strategy for perioperative pain management. Growing concerns regarding opioid-related adverse events, delayed recovery, and persistent postoperative opioid use have prompted a paradigm shift away from opioid-centered analgesia, transitioning first to opioid-sparing strategies and now toward the concept of opioid-free approaches. Drawing on recent meta-analyses and scoping reviews, this article critically evaluates the current strength of evidence supporting OFA and discusses key considerations for its implementation in clinical practice.Current Concepts: OFA combines non-opioid analgesic agents—including dexmedetomidine, ketamine, lidocaine, magnesium, acetaminophen, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs—administered with or without regional analgesic techniques. Intraoperative OFA protocols have been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and to modestly alleviate early postoperative pain, without impairing hemodynamic stability or overall safety. After discharge, OFA provides analgesic efficacy comparable to opioid-based regimens while reducing the occurrence of opioid-related adverse effects. However, the magnitude of these benefits remains relatively modest, and existing clinical evidence is insufficient to support the routine adoption of OFA. Moreover, evidence supporting its effectiveness in the immediate postoperative period remains limited.Discussion and conclusion: OFA represents a promising yet still developing approach in perioperative care. The complete elimination of opioids should not supersede the fundamental goal of ensuring adequate analgesia and promoting functional recovery. Successful implementation requires individualized, procedure-specific protocols that integrate multimodal strategies and allow judicious opioid rescue when necessary. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are required to establish its clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and safety.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: The defense and veterans pain rating scale (DVPRS) is a pain assessment tool combining a numerical rating scale (NRS) with descriptive words, colors, and facial expressions. This study aimed to validate the Korean version of the DVPRS (K-DVPRS) for postoperative pain assessment. Methods: This study included patients who underwent elective laparoscopic or robotic abdominal surgery. The original DVPRS was translated into Korean using a forward-backward method. Pain intensities at rest and during coughing were assessed at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively using the NRS and K-DVPRS, respectively. The EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was also used. The validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the K-DVPRS were evaluated. Results: Of the 174 patients screened, 150 were enrolled, and 148 completed the study. The K-DVPRS had strong convergent validity with the NRS at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (ρ: 0.75 to 0.78, all P < 0.001). Construct validity was confirmed by significant differences in pain scores based on surgical extent and duration. The internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.77 and 0.85 at 24 and 48 hours, respectively), and test-retest reliability at 24 hours was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90 at rest and 0.95 during coughing).Responsiveness, measured by Cliff’s effect size, was high from preoperative to 24 hours postoperatively and moderate from 24 to 48 hours. At 48 hours, the K-DVPRS had stronger correlations with the EQ-5D-5L index and EQVAS than with the NRS. Conclusions The K-DVPRS is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for assessing postoperative pain in Korean patients.

Background: We aimed to investigate the optimal surgical timing in patients with preoperative coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection to minimize postoperative morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 vaccination era. Methods: The Korean nationwide data on patients who underwent standard surgery under general anesthesia in 2021 were analyzed. Patients were categorized based on the time from COVID-19 diagnosis to surgery: 0–4, 5–8, > 8 weeks, and those without preoperative COVID-19 infection. Multivariable logistic regression analysis, considering preoperative COVID-19 vaccination status (fully vaccinated vs. unvaccinated or partially vaccinated), was performed to associate the preoperative COVID-19 infection timing with 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality and 30-day respiratory complications. Results: Among the 750,175 included patients, 28.2% were preoperatively fully vaccinated. Compared with patients without prior COVID-19 infection, those who had surgery 0–4 weeks (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 4.28, 95% CI [1.81, 10.13], P = 0.001) and 5–8 weeks (adjusted OR: 3.38, 95% CI [1.54, 7.44], P = 0.002) after COVID-19 infection had a significantly increased risk of 30-day mortality. Preoperative full vaccination was significantly associated with a decrease in 90-day mortality (adjusted OR: 0.93, 95% CI [0.89, 0.98], P = 0.007) and 30-day respiratory complications (adjusted OR: 0.85, 95% CI [0.82, 0.87], P < 0.001), but not with 30-day mortality (P = 0.916). Conclusions COVID-19 infection eight weeks preoperatively was associated with an increased 30-day postoperative mortality. Preoperative full vaccination was not associated with 30-day mortality but was related to lower risk of 90-day mortality and 30-day respiratory complications.

Background: Optimizing endotracheal tube (ETT) shape is important for successful videolaryngoscope-aided intubation. This prospective randomized controlled study aimed to compare the tube-handling time between a C-curved and hockey stick-shaped stylet in infants and neonates using the C-MAC® videolaryngoscope Miller blade. Methods: A total of 110 infants (age < 1 year) were randomly assigned to either the hockey stick-curved stylet group (group H, n = 53) or the C-curved stylet group (group C, n = 57). The primary outcome was tube handling time after glottis visualization and the secondary outcomes were the total intubation time, incidence of successful intubation, initial tube tip location at the laryngeal inlet, and numerical rating scale for ease of intubation. Results: Tube insertion time and total intubation duration (both in seconds) were significantly shorter in group C than in group H (13.3 ± 8.9 vs. 25.1 ± 27.0, P = 0.002; 19.9 ± 9.4 vs. 32.8 ± 27.1, P = 0.001, respectively). Group C displayed a higher rate of intubation success within 30 s than group H (87.7% vs. 69.8%, P = 0.029). The initial tube tip was located at the center in 34 children in group C (59.6%) and 12 children in group H (26.1%, P < 0.001). Laryngoscope operators rated intubation as easier when provided with a C-curved stylet. Conclusions In neonates and infants, modification of the ETT shape into a C-curve may reduce tube handling time compared to the conventional hockey stick-shaped tube during intubation using a C-MAC® video laryngoscope Miller blade.