Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2022
The efficacy and safety of an adapted opioid-free anesthesia regimen versus conventional general anesthesia in gynecological surgery for low-resource settings: a randomized pilot study.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04737473 (General Anesthesia Usiing Fentanyl Plus Propofol Plus Rococuronium Plus Isoflurane Versus Ketamime Plus Magnesium Sulphate Plus Lidocaine Plus Clonidine Plus Propofol Plus Rococuronium Plus Isoflurane in Gynaecology Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
General Anesthesia Usiing Fentanyl Plus Propofol Plus Rococuronium Plus Isoflurane Versus Ketamime Plus Magnesium Sulphate Plus Lidocaine Plus Clonidine Plus Propofol Plus Rococuronium Plus Isoflurane in Gynaecology Surgery
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impact of the absence of opioid anesthesia on postoperative outcome indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Effects of Intravenous Esketamine or Magnesium Sulfate on Early Postoperative Negative Emotions and Pain in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Sinus Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and safety of opioid-free anesthesia compared to opioid-based anesthesia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary Postoperative Ileus Management: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- A nomogram to predict postoperative nausea and vomiting in the ward following laparoscopic bariatric surgery.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- The Performance of Opioid-Free Anesthesia for Bariatric Surgery in Clinical Practice.Obesity surgery · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is scarce data on the safety and efficacy of opioid-free anesthesia (OFA), in resource-limited settings due to the non-availability of dexmedetomidine, the reference OFA agent. We aimed to demonstrate the feasibility, efficacy and safety of a practical OFA protocol not containing dexmedetomidine, adapted for low-resource environments in very painful surgeries like gynecological surgery.
methodsWe conducted a randomized pilot study on ASA I and II women undergoing elective gynecological surgery at a tertiary care hospital in Cameroon. Patients were matched in a ratio of 1:1 into an OFA and a conventional general anesthesia (CGA) group. The OFA protocol entailed the intravenous (IV) magnesium sulfate, lidocaine, ketamine, dexamethasone, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and a continuous infusion of a calibrated mixture of magnesium sulfate, ketamine and clonidine. The CGA protocol was IV dexamethasone, diazepam, fentanyl, propofol, and rocuronium, followed by isoflurane and reinjections of fentanyl propofol and a continuous infusion of normal saline as placebo. The primary endpoints were the success rate of OFA, isoflurane consumption and intraoperative anesthetic complications. The secondary endpoints were postoperative pain intensity, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction assessed using the QoR-40 questionnaire and the financial cost of anesthesia.
resultsWe enrolled a total of 36 women undergoing gynecological surgery; 18 in the OFA group and 18 in the CGA group. The success rate of OFA was 100% with significant lesser consumption of isoflurane in the OFA group, no significant intraoperative complication and better intraoperative hemodynamic stability in the OFA group. Postoperatively, compared to the CGA group, the OFA group had statistically significantly less pain during the first 24 h, no morphine consumption for pain relief, had less hypoxemia during the first six hours, less paralytic ileus, less nausea and vomiting, no pruritus and better satisfaction. The mean financial cost of this adapted OFA protocol was statistically significant lesser than that of CGA.
conclusionThis OFA regimen without dexmedetomidine for a low-resource setting has a promising success rate with few perioperative complications including mild intraoperative hemodynamic changes, decrease postoperative complications, pain, and opioid consumption in patients undergoing elective gynecology surgery.
trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov on 03/02/2021 under the registration number NCT04737473.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.