ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Esketamine for Postoperative Multimodal Analgesia in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Postoperative pain management after laparoscopic surgery remains challenging. Esketamine, a potent N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, may improve multimodal analgesia while mitigating opioid-related side effects. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of perioperative intravenous esketamine in adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials according to PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to October 1, 2025. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity (at rest and during movement at 24 hours) and 24-hour opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included rescue analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), hallucinations, and depressive symptoms. Data were pooled using random-effects models, and evidence certainty was assessed with GRADE. Results: Twenty-eight RCTs (3160 patients), all conducted in China, were included. Esketamine significantly reduced pain at rest (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.40) and during movement (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.19), and decreased 24-hour opioid consumption (SMD -16.83, 95% CI -31.60 to -2.05). It also reduced rescue analgesia requirements (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76) and PONV incidence (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) without increasing hallucinations (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.03). A reduction in postoperative depressive symptoms was observed (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.05). Subgroup analyses suggested greater analgesic benefit with low-dose regimens (<0.5 mg/kg) and in biliary surgeries. Evidence certainty was low to very low for primary outcomes. Twenty-eight RCTs (3160 patients), all conducted in China, were included, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Esketamine was associated with reductions in pain at rest (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.40) and during movement (SMD -0.64, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.19), and decreased 24-hour opioid consumption (SMD -16.83, 95% CI -31.60 to -2.05), although substantial heterogeneity was observed. It also reduced rescue analgesia requirements (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76) and PONV incidence (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) without increasing hallucinations (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.03). A reduction in postoperative depressive symptoms was observed (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.05). Subgroup analyses suggested greater analgesic effects with low-dose regimens (<0.5 mg/kg) and in biliary surgeries. Evidence certainty was low to very low for primary outcomes. Conclusion: Perioperative intravenous esketamine may be associated with improvements in postoperative pain, opioid requirements, rescue analgesia, and PONV in laparoscopic surgery without increasing neuropsychiatric adverse events. However, the certainty of the evidence is low and substantial heterogeneity limits confidence in these estimates. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution, and high-quality, international RCTs are needed to confirm efficacy and establish optimal dosing.
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.