Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42185786›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2026

Opioid-free versus opioid-based anesthesia in laparoscopic bariatric surgery: an exploratory randomized pilot trial.

Emanuel Almeida, Fábio Almeida, Carina Rossoni, Rui Ribeiro

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07337135 (Opioid-free Anesthesia vs Opioid-based Anesthesia / A Heavyweight Showdown - Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

NCT07337135 nacompletednot on this map

Opioid-free Anesthesia vs Opioid-based Anesthesia / A Heavyweight Showdown - Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital dos LusíadasRan2023 to 2024Enrolled60ConditionsMorbid Obesity, Postoperative Pain, Opioid Free Anesthesia, Bariatric SurgeryArmsOpioid-Based Anesthesia (Remifentanil-Based Protocol), Opioid-Free Anesthesia (Dexmedetomidine-Ketamine-Lidocaine Protocol)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Emanuel AlmeidaMultidisciplinary Center for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes at Lusíadas Hospital Amadora, Amadora, Portugal. emanueljoao7@gmail.com.
Fábio AlmeidaMultidisciplinary Center for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes at Lusíadas Hospital Amadora, Amadora, Portugal.
Carina RossoniMultidisciplinary Center for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes at Lusíadas Hospital Amadora, Amadora, Portugal.
Rui RibeiroMultidisciplinary Center for the Treatment of Obesity and Diabetes at Lusíadas Hospital Amadora, Amadora, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe obesity, but perioperative pain control and prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain important clinical challenges. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) has been proposed as a strategy to reduce opioid-related adverse effects within multimodal perioperative care; however, evidence regarding its clinical benefits in bariatric surgery remains limited and heterogeneous.

methodsIn this prospective exploratory randomized pilot trial, 60 patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to receive opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) or opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). The primary endpoint was postoperative pain intensity at post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. Secondary outcomes included pain at additional time points, need for rescue analgesia, PONV, intraoperative nociception assessed using the nociception level (NOL) index, and patient satisfaction. Adjusted analyses were performed using generalized linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clinically relevant baseline imbalances.

resultsSixty patients were randomized (OFA n = 30; OBA n = 30), with no losses to follow-up. OFA was associated with lower postoperative pain scores at PACU discharge and at 24 h, but not at hospital discharge. Although absolute differences in pain intensity were modest, the need for rescue analgesia was lower in the OFA group (30.0% vs. 73.3%), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 43.3% and a number needed to treat of approximately 3. Adjusted analyses were consistent with these findings, showing higher odds of requiring rescue analgesia in the OBA group (adjusted OR 6.5, 95% CI 1.8-23.2), although the wide confidence interval reflects considerable imprecision. The incidence of PONV was similar between groups, although interpretation is limited by unequal antiemetic prophylaxis. Intraoperative nociception, assessed using the NOL index in a subset of patients, showed lower values in the OFA group, although these findings are exploratory.

conclusionsOFA was associated with modest reductions in postoperative pain and a clinically meaningful decrease in rescue analgesia requirements. These findings suggest that OFA may represent a promising opioid-sparing strategy but should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger, adequately powered multicentre randomized trials.

trial registrationNCT07337135. Registered on 13th January 2026. Retrospectively registered.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidAnesthesiaBariatric SurgeryLaparoscopyPostoperative PainAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain MeasurementPilot ProjectsPostoperative Nausea and VomitingProspective StudiesAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthesiaBariatric surgeryMetabolic surgeryOpioidsPONVPostoperative painSevere obesity

Identifiers

PMID42185786
PMCPMC13625403

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.