Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38935172›Full record

Trial reportJournal of anesthesia2024

Effect of nociception level-directed analgesic management on opioid usage in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a single-center, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Nobuhiro Tanaka, Yuma Kadoya, Takanori Suzuka, Takayuki Yamanaka, Mitsuru Ida, Yusuke Naito, Naoki Ozu, Shunta Hori, Masahiko Kawaguchi

Erratum issuedAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of anesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Variations of nociception level (NOLBMC anesthesiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nobuhiro TanakaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, Japan. nobuhirotanaka@naramed-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-8077-7404
Yuma KadoyaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ikeda City Hospital, Ikeda, Osaka, Japan.
Takanori SuzukaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Takayuki YamanakaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Prefecture General Medical Center, Nara, Nara, Japan.
Mitsuru IdaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Yusuke NaitoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Naoki OzuInstitute for Clinical and Translational Science, Nara Medical University Hospital, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Shunta HoriDepartment of Urology, Nara Medical University, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.
Masahiko KawaguchiDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara, Nara, Japan.

Funding

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP 22K16606Nara Medical University 21-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the importance of appropriate opioid administration methods according to nociceptive monitoring.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial involving 54 patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at our hospital. Patients were randomly allocated to either receive nociception level (NOL)-directed intraoperative opioid management with a minimum flow of remifentanil (NOL group) or conventional intraoperative analgesic management (control group). The primary outcome was the mean intraoperative remifentanil infusion flow rate (intraoperative remifentanil usage [μg]/ideal body weight [kg]/operation time [min]). The main secondary outcomes were plasma concentrations of three perioperative inflammatory biomarkers (interleukin-6, C-reactive protein [CRP], and cortisol levels) and postoperative pain (Numeric Rating Scale [NRS]) scores 2 h postoperatively and on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, and 7.

resultsCompared with standard analgesia management, NOL-directed analgesic management reduced remifentanil consumption by 20% ( - 0.038; 95% confidence interval, - 0.059 to - 0.017; p = 0.0007). NOL-directed management did not lead to an increase in IL-6, CRP, or cortisol levels compared with conventional analgesic management. Furthermore, this protocol led to improvements in the NRS scores at rest 2 h postoperatively and upon movement up to postoperative day 3.

conclusionNOL-directed analgesic management reduced remifentanil consumption by 20% and the NRS scores at rest 2 h postoperatively and upon movement up to postoperative day 3 without an increase in inflammatory marker levels. REGISTRY NUMBER: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, JRCTs052220034.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidLaparoscopyPostoperative PainProstatectomyRemifentanilRobotic Surgical ProceduresAgedC-Reactive ProteinHumansHydrocortisoneInterleukin-6MaleMiddle AgedNociceptionPain ManagementPain MeasurementAnalgesics, OpioidC-Reactive ProteinHydrocortisoneInterleukin-6RemifentanilAnalgesicsAnesthesia and analgesiaNociceptionOpioidPain measurementProstatectomy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.