Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
Efficacy and safety of lidocaine versus sufentanil in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oliceridine versus Sufentanil for Postoperative Intravenous Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Surgery in the AICU: A Double-Blind Non-Inferiority Trial.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lidocaine-based patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) with sufentanil-based PCIA for managing postoperative pain in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery.
methodsA total of 126 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to lidocaine group (group L, n = 63) or the sufentanil group (group S, n = 63). The primary endpoint was visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score during movement at 24 h after surgery. Secondary endpoints included VAS pain scores at rest and during movement at 6, 12, 36, and 48 h after surgery, the time of first flatus and defecation after the surgery, postoperative hospitalization time and total hospitalization costs, patient satisfaction scores, and the incidence of adverse events.
resultsThere was no significant difference between the two groups in VAS pain scores at rest and during movement at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h after surgery (all p > 0.05). The time to first flatus and defecation, as well as postoperative hospitalization time and total hospitalization expenses, were also similar between the two groups (all p > 0.05). However, satisfaction score was significantly higher in group L compared to group S (p < 0.05), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly lower in group L than in group S (p < 0.05).
conclusionsLidocaine-based PCIA can effectively relieve postoperative pain, decrease the incidence of PONV, and improve patient satisfaction in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery. TRIALS REGISTRATION: The study was registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) with the registration number ChiCTR2300068854, with the registration date being March 1, 2023.
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.