Search PubMedSearch

subject

Elective Surgical Procedures

Elective Surgical Procedures: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: pubmed. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Effects of Esketamine on Postoperative Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Scores in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Radical Resection for Colorectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of intravenous esketamine on postoperative Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical resection for colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study, adult patients for elective laparoscopic radical resection were randomly assigned (1:1) to a control group (group C) or an esketamine group (group PE). Group C received conventional general anesthesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). In group PE, esketamine 0.5&#x2009;mg/kg was injected during induction of anesthesia, with esketamine 1&#x2009;mg/kg added to PCIA. Primary outcome was HADS score on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes included HADS scores on postoperative days 3 and 7, sleep quality scores, postoperative level of consciousness, complication rate, length of hospital stay, 24&#x2009;h inflammatory factors, and satisfaction scores. RESULTS: Group PE showed significantly lower HADS-A and HADS-D scores on postoperative days 1 and 3 , reduced 24&#x2009;h interleukin-6 (IL-6) leveland higher patient satisfaction compared with group C (all p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine given during induction and in PCIA reduced early-stage postoperative HADS scores and improved patient satisfaction in colorectal cancer patients.

Humans

Comparison of opioid-free versus opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing short-duration surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults who undergo short-duration surgery are vulnerable to opioid-related complications. It is uncertain whether an opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia (OFA) can reduce these events. We aimed to determine whether OFA reduces the incidence of major postoperative adverse events compared with standard opioid-based total intravenous anaesthesia (OBA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted in China. From May to August 2025, 400 patients aged &#x2265;60&#x2009;years undergoing elective, short-duration surgery (anticipated duration of less than 90&#x2009;min) were randomized 1:1 to receive either OFA (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;200) or OBA (n&#x2009;=&#x2009;200). The primary outcome was a composite of postoperative hypoxemia, delirium, or nausea and vomiting (PONV) within 48&#x2009;h. RESULTS: A total of 400 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 69.5 [7.0] years; 125 [31.3%] women). The primary composite outcome occurred in 50 patients (25.0%) in the OFA group and 87 patients (43.5%) in the OBA group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.62; p < .001). Among the OFA group had a lower incidence of hypoxemia (15.0% vs 32.0%) and PONV (8.0% vs 16.0%). Intraoperative hemodynamic stability was greater in the OFA group. However, the OFA group had a higher incidence of intraoperative bradycardia (10.0% vs 3.0%; p = .005) and longer extubation times (mean, 9.5 vs 7.2&#x2009;min; p < .001). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that OFA is a viable alternative to opioid-based anesthesia for improving postoperative outcomes by reducing the incidence of hypoxemia and PONV in this population, while warranting careful management of its associated side effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2500102550.

Humans
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.