Article Sidebar

article details
Date Published: 30/07/2026
Online Published: 30/07/2026
Abstract Views: 0
Views article details: 0
Issue
No. 1 (2026)
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Nguyen, D. T., Tran, D. T., Tran, H. N., Vo, V. H., & Do, V. L. (2026). Recent updates on pain and analgesia evaluation techniques in anesthesia. Journal of Disaster Medicine and Burn Injuries, 1, 88-95. https://jbdmp.vn/index.php/yhthvb/article/view/426

Recent updates on pain and analgesia evaluation techniques in anesthesia

Nguyen Dang Thu1,, Tran Dac Tiep1, Tran Hoai Nam1, Vo Van Hien2, Do Van Loi3
1 Military Hospital 103
2 Le Huu Trac National Burn Hospital
3 Phenikaa University Hospital

Main Article Content

Abstract

Accurate assessment of intraoperative nociception and antinociception is essential for optimizing analgesic drug administration, ensuring intraoperative stability, enhancing recovery, and reducing the incidence of severe postoperative pain and chronic pain. Traditionally, heart rate and blood pressure have been used as indicators for monitoring nociception and antinociception during surgery. However, anesthetic agents often influence these parameters, limiting their reliability in accurately reflecting nociceptive states. To date, several commercial devices with proprietary indices have been introduced to assess the body’s response to surgical stress. Each device offers distinct targets, mechanisms, and limitations. This article provides an updated review of current methods for evaluating nociception and analgesia during anesthesia, highlighting their strengths, limitations, and practical applications.

Article Details

Keywords

Nociception, Antinociception, General anesthesia

References

1. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020; 161(9):1976-82.
2. Fregoso G, Wang A, Tseng K, Wang J. Transition from Acute to Chronic Pain: Evaluating Risk for Chronic Postsurgical Pain. Pain Physician. 2019; 22(5):479-88.
3. Bourne S, Machado AG, Nagel SJ. Basic anatomy and physiology of pain pathways. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2014; 25(4):629-38.
4. Mathews DM, Clark L, Johansen J, Matute E, Seshagiri CV. Increases in electroencephalogram and electromyogram variability are associated with an increased incidence of intraoperative somatic response. Anesth Analg. 2012; 114(4):759-70.
5. Ellerkmann RK, Grass A, Hoeft A, Soehle M. The response of the composite variability index to a standardized noxious stimulus during propofol-remifentanil anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2013; 116(3):580-8.
6. Martinez-Vazquez P, Jensen EW. Different perspectives for monitoring nociception during general anesthesia. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2022; 75(2):112-23.
7. Wang H, Wang Q, He Q, Li S, Zhao Y, Zuo Y. Current perioperative nociception monitoring and potential directions. Asian J Surg. 2024; 47(6):2558-65.
8. De Jonckheere J, Bonhomme V, Jeanne M, Boselli E, Gruenewald M, Logier R, et al. Physiological Signal Processing for Individualized Anti-nociception Management During General Anesthesia: a Review. Yearb Med Inform. 2015; 10(1):95-101.
9. Ledowski T. Objective monitoring of nociception: a review of current commercial solutions. Br J Anaesth. 2019; 123(2):e312-e21. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.03.024
10. Yoshida K, Obara S, Inoue S. Analgesia nociception index and high frequency variability index: promising indicators of relative parasympathetic tone. J Anesth. 2023; 37(1):130-7.