SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Morphine”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Impact on analgesia, diaphragmatic function, and recovery between erector spinae plane block versus superior trunk block in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective analgesia and preservation of diaphragmatic function are key considerations in analgesia for shoulder surgery. The superior trunk block provides analgesia with reduced phrenic nerve involvement, while the erector spinae plane block offers minimal impact on diaphragm motion. This randomized controlled trial compared the analgesic efficacy, impact on diaphragmatic motion, and postoperative recovery between the two blocks. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive either erector spinae plane block or superior trunk block. Primary outcomes were postoperative VAS and changes in diaphragmatic excursion. Secondary outcomes included Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores, morphine-equivalent consumption, and the handgrip strength motor blockade. RESULTS: The superior trunk block resulted in significantly lower dynamic VAS at 1-h postoperatively (0.1 [0.0, 0.2] vs. 5.7 [4.0, 7.6]; p < 0.001) and reduced 24-h morphine consumption (7.8 [2.5, 15.0] mg vs. 12.7 [7.5, 17.3] mg; p = 0.038) compared to the erector spinae plane block. However, diaphragmatic excursion was better preserved in the erector spinae plane block group (8.37% ± 20.7% vs. -20.09% ± 22.2%; p < 0.001), with a lower incidence of partial hemidiaphragm paresis (3.3% vs. 46.7%; p < 0.001). At 24 h postoperatively, QoR-15 scores were higher in the superior trunk block group (p = 0.047), and no patient in either group developed handgrip motor blockade. CONCLUSIONS: Superior trunk block offers superior early postoperative analgesia and better overall recovery, while erector spinae plane block minimizes diaphragmatic impairment. However, the erector spinae plane block may represent an option only in carefully selected patients at high respiratory risk, acknowledging its significantly poorer early analgesic profile.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effect of different liposomal bupivacaine concentrations in ultrasound-guided superior trunk block on postoperative analgesia and mobility: a randomized double-blind controlled trial protocol for shoulder arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder arthroscopy frequently causes severe postoperative pain that may impede recovery. Liposomal bupivacaine provides prolonged analgesia, and ultrasound-guided superior trunk block (STB) offers comparable analgesia to interscalene block with a lower risk of hemidiaphragmatic paralysis. However, the optimal concentration of liposomal bupivacaine for STB remains unknown. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial will enrol 282 adult patients scheduled for elective arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Patients will be randomly allocated (1:1:1) to receive ultrasound-guided STB with liposomal bupivacaine 66 mg (Group A), 44 mg (Group B) or 33 mg (Group C), each diluted to 10 mL. The co-primary outcomes are (1) rest pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score at 48 h post-surgery and (2) cumulative oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) consumption within 0-48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes include rest pain NRS scores at 6, 24 and 72 h; motor function assessed by Muscle Balance Scale, Bromage score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at 6, 24, 48 and 72 h; and Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score at 24 and 48 h. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the optimal concentration of liposomal bupivacaine for STB in arthroscopic shoulder surgery, aiming to achieve effective and prolonged analgesia without compromising shoulder mobility.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Liposomal bupivacaine versus ropivacaine for surgical site infiltration in lumbar fusion: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Effective postoperative pain control after lumbar spine surgery remains challenging, and excessive opioid use is associated with adverse outcomes. Evidence comparing liposomal bupivacaine (LB) with conventional long-acting local anesthetics in spine surgery is limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this single-center, prospective, randomized, patient- and outcome assessor-blinded trial, adult undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion were assigned (1:1) to surgical site infiltration with either LB (266 mg) plus 25 mg plain bupivacaine (LB group) or ropivacaine (R group). The primary outcome was 72 h cumulative opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents, MME). Secondary outcomes included time-profile opioid consumption, pain scores, rescue analgesia, safety, and functional recovery. RESULTS: A total of 202 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Cumulative MME within 72 h was significantly lower in the LB group compared with the R group [43.0 (37.0, 58.0) mg vs. 58.0 (46.0, 73.0) mg], corresponding to a 22% relative reduction (GMR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.85; p < 0.001). The reduction was most pronounced during 8-24 h and 24-48 h postoperatively. Overall pain scores at rest and with movement, as well as 72-h pain AUC, were lower in the LB group. No significant between-group differences were observed in rescue analgesia, adverse events and functional recovery. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing one- or two-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion, surgical site infiltration with an LB-based combined regimen, compared with ropivacaine monotherapy, reduced 72-h opioid consumption and cumulative postoperative pain burden without an observed increase in adverse events or impairment of early functional recovery.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Effects of sub-anesthetic doses of esketamine on immune function and postoperative negative emotions in acoustic neuroma patients: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing acoustic neuroma (AN) surgery often experience postoperative negative emotions, including anxiety, depression, and immune function suppression. This trial evaluated whether perioperative sub-anesthetic esketamine improves early postoperative negative emotions and immune function. METHODS: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, 84 patients scheduled for AN surgery were assigned to esketamine (n = 42) or placebo (n = 42). The esketamine cohort received a continuous intravenous infusion of esketamine at 0.2 mg·kg-1·h-1 during anesthesia, followed by 1 mg·kg-1 esketamine as an adjuvant in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA). The placebo group received saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of depression on postoperative day (POD1), defined as a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale (HADS-D) score > 7. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients completed the study (39 in the esketamine group, 38 in the placebo group). Esketamine significantly reduced the incidence of depression at POD1 (7.7% versus 31.6%; relative risk 0.24, 95% CI: 0.08-0.80, p = 0.008) and POD3 (0.0% versus 15.8%, relative risk 0.00, 95% CI: 0.00-0.47, p = 0.031) compared with placebo. The incidences of anxiety on POD1 and 3 and sleep disturbances on POD1 were also significantly reduced (p < 0.05). Notably, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of immune function, postoperative pain scores, or intraoperative morphine equivalent. Adverse events did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Perioperative sub-anesthetic esketamine reduced postoperative depression and anxiety, and improve sleep quality after AN surgery, without significant effects on early immune function or acute postoperative analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400084537.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparing the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral spinal anesthesia has gained increasing attention in recent years. Emerging evidence suggests that it provides comparable analgesia to conventional bilateral spinal anesthesia while reducing adverse effects, and its efficacy and safety compared to bilateral spinal anesthesia remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia. DESIGN: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception to December 10, 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies were randomized controlled trials involving adult patients (≥18 years) undergoing surgery under spinal anesthesia, comparing unilateral versus bilateral spinal anesthesia for efficacy and adverse effects. Studies that focused exclusively on either unilateral or bilateral spinal anesthesia were excluded. The comparator group used the same local anesthetic as the experimental group, with no restrictions on adjuncts (e.g. fentanyl, morphine). RESULTS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials including 1191 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, unilateral spinal anesthesia has a longer onset of sensory blockade (MD = 2.58, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.22, p = 0.002), a shorter duration of sensory blockade (MD = -27.83, 95% CI: -39.25 to -16.42, p < 0.00001). In addition, unilateral spinal anesthesia significantly reduced the incidence of hypotension (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.52, p < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.56, p = 0.002), and post-dural puncture headache (RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.81, p = 0.009). No statistically significant differences were observed in bradycardia and urinary retention. Collectively, these findings support unilateral spinal anesthesia as a strategy that may enhance perioperative safety while maintaining adequate anesthetic efficacy in appropriately selected patients. CONCLUSIONS: Unilateral spinal anesthesia may offer a favorable balance between anesthetic efficacy and safety compared with bilateral spinal anesthesia, although its clinical utility may depend on surgical duration and patient characteristics.

Humans↗