Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953470›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025

Effectiveness and Safety of Opioid-Free Anaesthesia and Analgesia in pain control and postoperative recovery of patients undergoing gynaecologic oncologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

Jose Alexander Puentes Garcia, Daniel Rivera Tocancipa, Eugenio Medina, Julián Jovel Díaz, Pisso, Vincent Jean Carlo García Gil, Fredy Leonardo Carreño Hernandez

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

7 authors.

Jose Alexander Puentes GarciaHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Neiva, Colombia. Jalexanderp33@gmail.com.
Daniel Rivera TocancipaHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Anesthesiologists, Neiva, Colombia.
Eugenio MedinaHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Anesthesiologists, Neiva, Colombia.
Julián Jovel DíazHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Neiva, Colombia.
PissoHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Neiva, Colombia.
Vincent Jean Carlo García GilHospital Universitario de Neiva and South Colombian University, Neiva, Colombia.
Fredy Leonardo Carreño HernandezClinical Research, School of Medicine, Universidad de los Andes Bogotá, D.C, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-0190-9959

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOpioids have been essential for the anesthesiologic management of patients undergoing surgical procedures such as gynecologic oncology, but incorrect dosage can lead to unwanted hemodynamic effects. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) and multimodal postoperative analgesia techniques can solve this problem as they can restrict the excessive use of opioids. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted by reviewing the medical records of patients at the Hernando Moncaleano Perdomo University Hospital. Female patients who underwent gynecologic oncology surgery at the MPUHN and who received OFA, or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) were identified. Two cohorts were created in which one have all patients (unadjusted cohort) and one with randomly selected patients (adjust cohort). Data on pain were collected using a visual analog pain scale (VAPS), along with hemodynamic variables and adverse events at 7 different times from admission to the operating room until discharge from the hospital. A bivariate analysis was performed between OFA and OBA, comparing frequencies of VAPS and adverse events with chi2, while mean difference for hemodynamic variables with t student. A multivariate analysis was performed with multiple logistic regression to evaluate differences in frequency of VAPS between OFA and OBA.

resultsFor unadjusted cohort, difference was identified for greater pain in OFA than in OBA (p < 0.001) for the times before surgery, recovery room, and 24 h after surgery, while differences were only identified at recovery room in the adjusted cohort. The heart rate has significant differences only at pre-surgery, 30 min of induction and admission to the recovery room. Respiratory rate has significant differences at admission to the operating room, 30 min of induction. Mean arterial pressure was significant only in the recovery room and for oxygen saturation at admission to the operating room and discharge from recovery. Higher frequency of requiring antiemetics was only identified in patients with OFA than OBA on the fifth day of surgery. Significance was identified in multivariate analysis between OBA and OFA for at discharge from recovery room.

conclusionsThe OFA technique for gynecologic oncologic surgery patients has a similar impact on pain control compared to OBA.

trial registrationDoes not apply.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesiaGenital Neoplasms, FemaleGynecologic Surgical ProceduresPain ManagementPostoperative PainAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPain MeasurementRetrospective StudiesAnalgesics, OpioidCancerGynecological surgeryGynecologic oncologyMultimodal analgesiaOpioid free anaesthesiaOpioidsSurgery

Identifiers

PMID39953470
PMCPMC11827242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.