ArticleBMC anesthesiology2025
Intravenous esketamine as a detumescence agent for intraoperative penile erection during urological surgeries: a retrospective clinical analysis.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntraoperative penile erection (IPE) is an uncommon yet complex issue, and numerous approaches to achieving detumescence fall short of providing consistently satisfactory outcomes. Esketamine, with its sympathomimetic properties, may offer a promising solution for managing this condition. The present study aimed to evaluated the efficiency and safety of intravenous esketamine in addressing IPE.
methodsWe conducted a review of 3,848 patients who underwent endourological, penile or testicular surgeries under general anesthesia from 2021 to 2023, and cases with IPE and received pharmacological intervention were included in this study. Intravenous esketamine or ephedrine were preferred for managing IPE. The primary outcomes evaluated were the rate of successful penile detumescence, time to detumescence, rapid response rate, remedial measures, intraoperative hypertension, tachycardia and neuropsychiatric adverse events. Additionally, data regarding age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, type of surgeries, anesthesia methods, medication dosage, and recovery time were documented. We performed meticulously statistical analyses to evaluate the endpoints.
resultsOverall, 37 cases with IPE were assigned to an esketamine group (K group, n = 27) or an ephedrine group (E group, n = 10) based on intraoperative medication. No statistically significant differences were noted regarding age, BMI, ASA grade, type of surgeries, anesthesia methods, rate of successful penile detumescence (96.3% vs. 80.0%), recovery time or the occurrence of postoperative psychiatric complications such as dizziness, restlessness or delirium(P > 0.05). However, compared to ephedrine, esketamine produced a shorter time to detumescence (3.0 ± 0.4 min vs. 5.5 ± 1.1 min, log-rank P = 0.006)), higher rapid response rate achieved detumescence ≤ 3 min (85.2% vs. 50%, P = 0.041), and a lower incidence of cardiovascular adverse events (intraoperative hypertension and tachycardia) (P < 0.05).
conclusionOur research establishes intravenous esketamine as a practical and reliable therapeutic intervention for prompt resolution of IPE, demonstrating high clinical efficacy with rapid symptom alleviation.
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.