Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Comparison of different hydromorphone bolus doses in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for post-laparoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Oliceridine and Hydromorphone for Postoperative Analgesia in Adults Undergoing Lower Limb Fracture Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Trial
- Effect of Oliceridine Combined with Sufentanil on Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia in Elderly Patients After Laparoscopic Radical Resection of Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety profile of varying bolus doses of hydromorphone administered via patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 111 patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery were randomly allocated into three groups, each receiving hydromorphone PCIA without background infusion. The groups differed by bolus dose: Group A (0.20 mg, n = 39), Group B (0.25 mg, n = 34), and Group C (0.30 mg, n = 38). All PCIA solutions consisted of hydromorphone with same concentration (10 mg diluted in 100 mL normal saline, concentration 0.1 mg/mL), with a lockout interval of 10 min. VAS scores for pain at rest and during activity at 24 h postoperatively were assessed as the primary endpoint measures. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity at rest and during activity at other time points (PACU admission, and 4, 8, 12 h postoperatively), bolus frequency, cumulative hydromorphone consumption, catheter removal time, recovery indices (time to first flatus, oral intake, ambulation), vital signs (oxygen saturation, MAP, heart rate, respiratory rate), and postoperative adverse events (postoperative nausea and vomiting [PONV], pruritus, dizzy and respiratory depression).
resultsThere were no significant differences among the three groups in VAS scores at rest and during activity at 24 h postoperatively. Similarly, VAS scores at rest and during activity at PACU, 4, 8, and 12 h after surgery did not differ significantly among groups. The frequency of bolus administration was significantly higher in Group A compared to Groups B and C (P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in total hydromorphone consumption, catheter removal time, bowel function recovery, or other recovery parameters. Although the differences were not statistically significant, the incidence of postoperative adverse events-including nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and dizziness-was lowest in Group B. No cases of respiratory depression occurred in any group.
conclusionHydromorphone PCIA at bolus doses of 0.20 mg, 0.25 mg, and 0.30 mg provided equivalent analgesic effectiveness in patients following laparoscopic surgery. The 0.20 mg dose group exhibited higher bolus administration frequency, whereas the 0.25 mg dose demonstrated the lowest incidence of adverse events, suggesting an optimal balance between analgesic efficacy and side-effect profile.
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.