# Influence of Hypnosis and Acupuncture on Perioperative Complications

## TL;DR

This study explores if hypnosis and acupuncture can reduce post-surgery complications like nausea and opioid use in spinal surgery patients.

## Contribution

The study is novel in comparing hypnosis, acupuncture, and standard care for perioperative outcomes in spinal surgery.

## Key findings

- Hypnosis provided anxiolytic benefits comparable to benzodiazepines.
- Intraoperative acupuncture did not increase postoperative nausea and vomiting.
- No significant differences in opioid or antiemetic consumption were found between groups.

## Abstract

Background: This randomised, single-centre study and original research manuscript aimed to evaluate whether perioperative hypnosis and acupuncture can reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid use, and other complications in spinal surgery compared to standard pharmacological management. Methods: In total, 60 patients undergoing spinal surgery were divided into three groups regarding antiemetic prevention: Hypnosis and acupuncture (HG), hypnosis, acupuncture, and antiemetic (HAG), and standard control with antiemetic (CG). Hypnosis was performed one day before surgery, or patients received premedication with midazolam on the day of surgery. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and remifentanil. Acupuncture was performed bilaterally at points LI4 and PC6 after induction of anaesthesia. Postoperatively, the consumption of opioids and antiemetics, satisfaction and well-being, length of stay and complications were recorded. Results: In all groups, additional opioids were administered in the first hour after surgery (p = 0.4). In the ICU, only one patient in the HAG and two patients in the CG and HG required additional analgesics (p = 0.8). Overall satisfaction (9/9/0 vs. 10/6/4 vs. 9/7/3; p = 0.4) and well-being scores (10/8/0 vs. 13/5/2 vs. 13/5/1; p = 0.5) were high across all groups, with no significant differences. Two patients in CG experienced mild complications. The length of hospitalisation was similar (3 days in CG vs. 4 days in HAG and HG (p = 0.7). Only one patient in the HG required antiemetics; none were needed in CG or HAG (p = 0.4). Conclusions: Within the constraints of this exploratory single-centre trial, hypnosis appeared to provide anxiolytic benefits comparable to benzodiazepines, and intraoperative acupuncture did not increase PONV despite reduced pharmacological prophylaxis. No significant differences were detected in opioid and antiemetic consumption. Larger, adequately powered studies are needed to confirm these findings and optimise the timing and modality of non-pharmacological interventions.