Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37822850›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2023

Opioid Free Total Intravenous Anesthesia With Dexmedetomidine-Esketamine-Lidocaine for Patients Undergoing Lumpectomy.

Xia Li Qian, Ping Li, Ya Jie Chen, Shi Qin Xu, Xian Wang, Shan Wu Feng

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xia Li QianDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Ping LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Ya Jie ChenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Shi Qin XuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Xian WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Shan Wu FengDepartment of Anesthesiology, Women's Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Nanjing Medical University · CNNanjing Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of the opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) technique with dexmedetomidine, esketamine, and lidocaine among patients diagnosed with benign breast mass and scheduled for lumpectomy. Methods: We enrolled 80 female patients who were aged from 18 to 60 years, graded with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II, diagnosed with benign breast mass, and scheduled for lumpectomy. These patients were randomly treated with OFA or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine and sufentanil-remifentanil were administered in OFA and OBA group, respectively. We mainly compared the analgesic efficacy of OFA and OBA technique, as well as intraoperative hemodynamics, the quality of recovery, and satisfaction score of patients. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to visual analogue scale (VAS) score at 2, 12, and 24 h after extubation. However, the time to first rescue analgesic was prolonged in OFA group than that in OFB group (6.18 ± 1.00 min vs. 7.40 ± 0.92 min, P = 0.000). Further, mean arterial pressure and heart rate at T0 (entering operating room), T1 (before anesthesia induction), T2 (immediately after intubation), T3, T4, and T5 (1, 5, and 10 min after surgical incision, respectively) were significantly higher in OFA group than that in OBA group. Incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was lower in OFA group. Consistently, fewer patients in OFA group consumed atropine (8% vs. 32%, P = 0.019) and ephedrine (5% vs. 38%, P = 0.001) compared to OBA group. Furthermore, patients in OFA group had a longer awakening time (7.14 ± 2.63 min vs. 4.54 ± 1.14 min, P = 0.000) and recovery time of orientation (11.76 ± 3.15 min vs. 6.92 ± 1.19 min, P = 0.000). Fewer patients in the OFA group experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (11% vs. 51%, P = 0.000) and consumed ondansetron (5% vs. 35%, P = 0.003) compared to OBA group. And patients in OFA group had a higher satisfaction score than those in OBA group (9 (8 - 9) vs. 7 (7 - 8), P = 0.000). Conclusion: For patients undergoing lumpectomy, OFA technique with dexmedetomidine-esketamine-lidocaine showed a better postoperative analgesic efficacy, a more stable hemodynamics, and a lower incidence of PONV. However, such advantage of OFA technique should be weighed against a longer awakening time and recovery time of orientation in clinical practice.

Indexed as

DexmedetomidineEsketamineLidocaineLumpectomyOpioid-free anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID37822850
PMCPMC10563822
OpenAlexW4387382383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.