SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2026
Multimodal opioid-free anesthesia containing esketamine versus opioid-based anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe paradigm shift toward opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is gaining traction, yet evidence regarding specific viable alternatives remains fragmented. This meta-analysis comprehensively evaluates the efficacy and safety of multimodal OFA regimens containing esketamine compared to traditional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA).
methodsThis study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching the electronic databases PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, including randomized controlled trials published from inception to September 20, 2024. The included studies had to feature at least one OFA group (defined as a multimodal regimen containing esketamine), where opioids were not used during the preoperative phase, anesthetic induction, intraoperative maintenance, or before anesthesia recovery.
resultsA total of 14 RCTs (1,703 patients) were analyzed. Regarding the primary outcomes, postoperative pain scores at 24 h (MD = -0.07; 95% CI: -0.27, 0.13; moderate certainty) and 48 h (MD = 0.00; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.30; moderate certainty) showed no statistically significant differences between the groups. However, multimodal OFA regimens containing esketamine demonstrated a reduced risk of chronic postoperative pain based exclusively on data from only two thoracic surgery trials (RR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.44, 0.92; low certainty). Regarding secondary outcomes, the OFA group showed a significantly lower incidence of intraoperative hypotension (RR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.49; high certainty) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.79; high certainty). No statistically significant differences were detected in extubation time, PACU length of stay, rescue analgesia requirements, or the incidence of nightmares or hallucinations. Notably, substantial statistical heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes, including pain scores, PONV, extubation time, and PACU length of stay.
conclusionMultimodal OFA regimens containing esketamine provide comparable postoperative analgesia to opioid-based anesthesia while reducing PONV and intraoperative hypotension. However, these findings represent combined multimodal effects across heterogeneous settings, and potential benefits for chronic pain prevention should be viewed strictly as hypothesis-generating.
trial registrationPROSPERO ID: CRD42024588900.
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.