Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38782997›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2024

Balanced opioid-free anesthesia with lidocaine and esketamine versus balanced anesthesia with sufentanil for gynecological endoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Yang Hu, Qing-Yun Zhang, Guan-Chao Qin, Guo-Hong Zhu, Xiang Long, Jin-Fei Xu, Yuan Gong

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

7 authors.

Yang Hu *Institute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Qing-Yun Zhang *Institute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Guan-Chao QinInstitute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Guo-Hong ZhuInstitute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Xiang LongInstitute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Jin-Fei XuInstitute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China.
Yuan GongInstitute of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, China Three Gorges University and Yichang Central People's Hospital, Yichang, 443000, Hubei, China. gy-yc@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this randomized controlled trial, 74 patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I/II) were enrolled and randomly divided into two study groups: (i) Group C (control), received sufentanil (0.3 μg/kg) and saline, followed by sufentanil (0.1 μg/kg∙h) and saline; and (ii) Group F (OFA), received esketamine (0.15 mg/kg) and lidocaine (2 mg/kg), followed by esketamine (0.1 mg/kg∙h) and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg∙h). The primary outcome was the 48-h time-weighted average (TWA) of postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, adverse effects, and postoperative sedation score, pain scores at different time points, analgesic consumption at 48 h, and gastrointestinal functional recovery. The 48-h TWAs of pain scores were 1.32 (0.78) (95% CI 1.06-1.58) and 1.09 (0.70) (95% CI 0.87-1.33) for Groups F and C, respectively. The estimated difference between Groups F and C was - 0.23 (95% CI - 0.58 - 0.12; P = 0.195). No differences were found in any of the secondary outcomes and no severe adverse effects were observed in either group. Balanced OFA with lidocaine and esketamine achieved similar effects to balanced anesthesia with sufentanil in patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery, without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2300067951, www.chictr.org.cn 01 February, 2023.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidGynecologic Surgical ProceduresKetamineLidocainePostoperative PainSufentanilAdultAnesthesiaAnesthetics, LocalFemaleHumansLaparoscopyMiddle AgedPain MeasurementAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalEsketamineKetamineLidocaineSufentanil

Identifiers

PMID38782997
PMCPMC11116438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.