Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 22, 2026

Implantation of Electroencephalogram and Electrocardiogram Telemetry Devices in Neonatal Rabbit Kits
Published on: February 28, 2025
Effects of esketamine sedation compared to morphine analgesia on hydrostatic reduction of intussusception: A
Jascha A van de Bunt1, Esther S Veldhoen2, Rutger A J Nievelstein3
1Department of Pediatric Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Insights
Procedural sedation with esketamine offers a potentially safer and more effective alternative to morphine analgesia for hydrostatic reduction of intussusception in children. Esketamine demonstrated a higher success rate and shorter procedure times, with no serious adverse events reported.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Surgery
- Gastroenterology
- Anesthesiology
Background:
- Intussusception reduction via hydrostatic or pneumatic methods can be challenging due to child resistance and pain.
- General anesthesia improves success rates but carries risks and requires specialized personnel.
- Procedural sedation with esketamine presents a potential alternative to mitigate these challenges.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the efficacy and safety of hydrostatic reduction using esketamine procedural sedation versus morphine analgesia.
- Key outcomes include success rate, adverse events, and duration of the reduction procedure.
Main Methods:
- A retrospective case-cohort study compared two groups undergoing hydrostatic reduction for ileocolic intussusception.
- Group 1 received intravenous morphine analgesia (n=37).
- Group 2 received esketamine procedural sedation (n=20), implemented after July 2013. Cases were matched for age and symptom duration.
Main Results:
- Esketamine sedation showed a higher success rate (90%) compared to morphine analgesia (70%).
- Reduction time was significantly shorter with esketamine (Median 5 min) versus morphine (Median 8 min).
- No serious adverse events were reported in either group; median hospital stay was also shorter with esketamine.
Conclusions:
- Esketamine procedural sedation appears to be a safe alternative for hydrostatic intussusception reduction.
- Evidence suggests esketamine may lead to higher success rates, lower recurrence, and shorter procedure and hospital stay durations compared to morphine analgesia.
Background:
Hydrostatic or pneumatic reduction of intussusception is an invasive procedure that is stressful and may be painful for a child. Resistance of the child may increase the duration of the procedure and decrease success rate of reduction. Analgesia can help to reduce pain, but not necessarily resistance. General anesthesia increases success rate of reduction. However, it requires the presence of an anesthesiologist, and may lead to anesthesia-related complications. Procedural sedation with esketamine could be a safe alternative.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to compare hydrostatic reduction using morphine analgesia compared to procedural sedation with esketamine in terms of success rate, adverse events, and duration of reduction.
Methods:
A retrospective case-cohort comparison study was performed with two groups of patients who had undergone hydrostatic reduction for ileocolic intussusception and received morphine analgesia (n = 37) or esketamine sedation (n = 20). Until July 2013, reduction was performed after intravenously administered morphine. Hereafter, a new protocol for procedural sedation was implemented and reduction was performed after administration of esketamine. Cases were matched for age and duration of symptoms.
Results:
No adverse events requiring intervention other than administration of oxygen were reported for either group. Success rate of reduction using esketamine sedation was 90% vs 70% using morphine analgesia, risk ratio (RR) 1.29, 95% CI[0.93-1.77]. Recurrence rate using esketamine sedation was 10% vs 15% using morphine analgesia, RR 0.67, 95% CI[0.12-3.57]. Reduction time was shorter using esketamine sedation (Median 5 minutes, IQR 9 minutes) vs morphine analgesia (Median 8 minutes, IQR 16 minutes, P = .04, Median difference 3, 95% CI[-1.50-8.75]). Median hospital stay in the esketamine group was 1.5 days (IQR 1.8) vs 2 days (IQR 5.3) in the morphine group.
Conclusion:
No serious adverse events were recorded. In comparison to morphine analgesia, with esketamine there was weak evidence for a higher success rate, lower recurrence rate, shorter duration, and shorter length of hospital stay.
Related Concept Videos
Parenteral Anesthetics: Overview
Endoscopic Procedures IV: Sigmoidoscopy and Laproscopy
Sigmoidoscopy
Sigmoidoscopy is a diagnostic procedure that uses a flexible sigmoidoscope equipped with a light source and camera to examine the rectum and sigmoid colon. The procedure involves inserting the tube through the anus...
Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Stability-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence
Drugs for Treatment of Diarrhea-Predominant IBS
Two specific drugs used in the treatment are alosetron (Lotronex) and eluxadoline (Viberzi). Alosetron, a 5-HT3 antagonist, works by slowing the movement of stools in the gut, reducing bowel...
Stages of General Anesthesia
