Introduction
Pediatric anesthesia management requires balancing adequate anesthetic depth with minimal side effects. Sevoflurane remains the preferred inhalational agent in pediatric practice due to its favorable induction characteristics and low airway irritation potential. However, it may produce excitatory phenomena during the induction and emergence phases, particularly in younger children.1 The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) has become integral to pediatric anesthesia, facilitating spontaneous ventilation during general anesthesia for minor surgical procedures.2 When insufficient anesthetic depth, LMA insertion can trigger significant protective airway reflexes, including laryngospasm and coughing.3 While deepening anesthesia effectively prevents these airway responses, higher sevoflurane concentrations have been associated with adverse neurological effects in susceptible patients, including epileptiform activity and emergence agitation, though individual patient factors significantly influence risk.4–6 Successful LMA placement therefore requires careful optimization of anesthetic depth, quantified as the minimum alveolar concentration required for LMA insertion (MACLMA).
Premedication offers several advantages in pediatric anesthesia, including anxiety reduction, improved induction cooperation, enhanced anesthetic potentiation, and decreased anesthetic requirements.7,8 Studies have shown that midazolam and dexmedetomidine effectively reduce sevoflurane requirements for LMA insertion.9,10 However, these agents present significant limitations: delayed onset, prolonged recovery times, and potential for paradoxical agitation or hemodynamic instability.
Esketamine, the S (+) enantiomer of ketamine, has emerged as a promising alternative for pediatric premedication.11 This N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDA) antagonist exhibits approximately twice the analgesic potency of racemic ketamine with fewer psychological side effects, minimal secretions, rapid onset, and shorter recovery time.12 Unlike conventional agents, esketamine preserves airway reflexes without causing cardiovascular depression. Intranasal administration is particularly suitable for pediatric patients as it avoids injection-related distress while ensuring efficient mucosal absorption.13
Despite these advantages, the effect of intranasal esketamine premedication on sevoflurane requirements for LMA insertion in pediatric patients has not been investigated. This randomized controlled trial, therefore, examines whether intranasal esketamine at doses of 0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg reduces the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for LMA insertion in children undergoing elective strabismus surgery. We hypothesize that intranasal esketamine premedication will produce dose-dependent reductions in sevoflurane requirements, enabling adequate anesthetic depth at lower sevoflurane concentrations, thereby reducing risks associated with inadequate anesthesia and excessive volatile exposure.
Methods
Study Design and Participants
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at Fujian Provincial Hospital, China, from November 2023 through September 2024. The Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol (approval number K2023-01-003) on January 18, 2023, with trial registration at the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=208297, ChiCTR2300076364) on October 7, 2023. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents or legal guardians before enrollment. The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki principles, Good Clinical Practice guidelines, and CONSORT 2025 reporting standards.14
We enrolled healthy children aged 2–5 years, classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists, with physical status I or II and scheduled for elective strabismus surgery, who were eligible for participation. We excluded patients with suspected difficult airway, recent respiratory conditions (within two weeks), recent sedative or analgesic use (within 48 hours), neuropsychiatric disorders, obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m²), known allergies to study medications, or significant life events within one month of surgery (parental divorce, bereavement, relocation, or school changes) that might affect behavioral assessments.
Randomization and Allocation Concealment
Participants were randomly assigned in equal proportions (1:1:1) to one of three treatment groups using computer-generated randomization: control (saline), esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, or esketamine 1.0 mg/kg. Allocation concealment was ensured using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. An independent research pharmacist, isolated from the clinical team, prepared identical syringes labeled only with study codes on the day of surgery. This double-blind design was maintained throughout the trial, with parents/guardians, healthcare providers, and outcome assessors all blinded to treatment assignments.
Premedication Protocol
All premedications were administered in a designated preoperative area with parents present to reduce anxiety. Twenty minutes before anesthetic induction, participants received one of three intranasal treatments according to their randomization: 0.9% saline solution (control), esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, or esketamine 1.0 mg/kg. Each formulation was delivered at a standardized volume of 0.04 mL/kg using a 1-mL syringe. An independent nurse administered the medication by instilling equal volumes into each nostril while the child remained supine.
Anesthetic Management
Children followed standard fasting guidelines (6–8 hours for solids, 2 hours for clear liquids) before anesthesia.15 Standard monitoring was established on arrival in the operating room, including pulse oximetry, electrocardiography, capnography, and noninvasive blood pressure measurement. We used a face mask with a semi-closed circuit system for anesthesia induction, delivering 5% sevoflurane in oxygen at 6 L/min. Ventilation progressed from initial spontaneous breathing to gentle manual assistance, maintaining end-tidal carbon dioxide between 35–45 mmHg throughout the procedure. We maintained the core temperature at 36.8 ± 0.4°C using a forced-air warming system (Bair Hugger 755; 3M Healthcare, USA). Sevoflurane concentration and end-tidal carbon dioxide were continuously monitored using a CARESCAPE Monitor B650 (GE Healthcare, USA).
Sevoflurane MACLMA Determination
We determined the minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for LMA insertion using Dixon’s sequential up-and-down method.16 Starting concentrations followed established protocols: 2.0% for the control group based on published data for unpremedicated children.10 The esketamine groups began at lower concentrations (1.6% for 0.5 mg/kg and 1.2% for 1.0 mg/kg) reflecting the expected dose-dependent anesthetic-sparing effect of NMDA receptor antagonists. All concentrations were equilibrated for 15 minutes before LMA insertion to ensure steady-state conditions.
To ensure unbiased assessment, a single experienced pediatric anesthesiologist (with over 200 LMA insertions annually) performed all procedures while blinded to the premedication type and sevoflurane concentration. Following each insertion attempt, the sevoflurane concentration was adjusted by ± 0.2% for the next patient in that group. An unsuccessful insertion (intentional movement, coughing, or airway reaction within one minute of insertion) led to a 0.2% increase, while a successful insertion prompted a 0.2% decrease. Independent observers, also blinded to treatment allocation, documented all responses to maintain assessment objectivity.
Anesthesia and Recovery Protocol
Following LMA placement assessment, anesthesia was deepened with 2.0 mg/kg propofol, 0.2 μg/kg sufentanil, and 0.3 mg/kg rocuronium. Maintenance anesthesia consisted of 2% sevoflurane in a 50% oxygen-air mixture. Analgesia included 1 mg/kg intravenous flurbiprofen axetil and 0.4% oxybuprocaine eye drops administered perioperatively. Antiemetic prophylaxis comprised 0.15 mg/kg dexamethasone and 0.1 mg/kg ondansetron. Following surgery and LMA removal, children were transferred to the PACU, where parents provided emotional support during recovery.
Outcome Measures
The primary outcome was the MACLMA of sevoflurane, determined using Dixon’s up-and-down sequential allocation method.17 This method relies on identifying crossover events—instances where a patient’s response differed from the preceding patient’s response (either successful insertion followed by unsuccessful insertion or the reverse). We calculated each crossover value as the midpoint between the end-tidal sevoflurane concentrations. The final MACLMA for each group was derived by averaging all crossover values.
For secondary outcomes, we assessed anesthesia induction quality using a validated 4-point scale (1 = uncooperative behavior requiring physical restraint; 4 = full cooperation or sleep state with mask acceptance).18 Emergence delirium was assessed during the first 30 minutes of recovery using the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale, with scores ≥10 indicating clinically significant delirium.19 Emergence time was defined as the interval from sevoflurane discontinuation to purposeful movement in response to verbal commands. Discharge readiness from the PACU was evaluated using the modified Aldrete scoring system (threshold ≥9).20 Parental satisfaction was assessed 24 hours postoperatively using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied).21 Finally, behavioral changes were evaluated three days after surgery via telephone interview using the Post-Hospitalization Behavior Questionnaire for Ambulatory Surgery.22
Adverse events were systematically documented using standardized forms throughout the perioperative period. Monitored complications included bradycardia, hypotension, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and nightmares. All outcome assessments were performed by a single investigator blinded to treatment allocation to ensure consistency and minimize bias.
Sample Size and Statistical Analysis
Based on Dixon’s up-and-down methodology, dose-response studies typically require 24–26 participants to obtain six crossover points.23 Following recent methodological guidance,24 implemented a fixed prespecified sample size rather than a random stopping rule. We included 30 participants in each treatment group to enhance statistical reliability and account for potential withdrawals.
Statistical analyses followed a predetermined plan. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables and median (interquartile range) for non-normally distributed variables. Categorical data are expressed as frequencies and percentages. We determined the sevoflurane MACLMA using Dixon’s method and verified it through probit regression analysis.
Between-group comparisons employed appropriate parametric or non-parametric tests based on data distribution. One-way ANOVA with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests was applied to normally distributed variables, while the Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Dunn’s test with Bonferroni adjustment, was used for non-normally distributed data. Categorical outcomes, including emergence delirium, behavioral changes, and adverse events, were analyzed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), with statistical significance set at p < 0.05 (two-tailed).
Results
Between November 2023 and September 2024, we screened 98 children for study participation, with 90 meeting the eligibility criteria for randomization. Following protocol exclusions, the final analysis included 28 patients in the control group, 28 in the esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group, and 29 in the esketamine 1.0 mg/kg group (Figure 1). Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar across all groups (Table 1).
Table 1 Baseline Characteristics
|
![]() |
Figure 1 Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram.
|
Our primary finding showed that intranasal esketamine premedication reduced the MACLMA of sevoflurane in a dose-dependent manner. These concentrations were 2.16% ± 0.18% (control, Figure 2A), 1.87% ± 0.17% (esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, Figure 2B), and 1.50% ± 0.19% (esketamine 1.0 mg/kg, Figure 2C), representing reductions of 13.4% and 30.6% from the control value, respectively. Probit regression analysis validated these findings, yielding comparable values of 2.06% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.85–2.26%) for control, 1.77% (95% CI: 1.60–1.95%) for esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and 1.42% (95% CI: 1.27–1.59%) for esketamine 1.0 mg/kg groups (Figure 3).
![]() |
Figure 2 Individual responses to laryngeal mask airway insertion determined by Dixon’s up-and-down method. Notes: Sequential plots showing patient responses to laryngeal mask airway insertion across three treatment groups: (A) control, (B) esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and (C) esketamine 1.0 mg/kg. Hollow circles represent successful insertions, while solid circles indicate unsuccessful insertions (characterized by movement, coughing, or bucking within one minute of placement). The horizontal dashed lines indicate the calculated minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane required for laryngeal mask airway insertion: 2.16% ± 0.18% (control group), 1.87% ± 0.17% (esketamine 0.5 mg/kg group), and 1.50% ± 0.19% (esketamine 1.0 mg/kg group). These values demonstrate a dose-dependent reduction in sevoflurane requirements with intranasal esketamine premedication.
|
![]() |
Figure 3 Probability curves for successful laryngeal mask airway insertion. Notes: Probit regression analysis showing the probability of successful laryngeal mask airway insertion relative to sevoflurane concentration. Three treatment groups are represented: control (light red line), esketamine 0.5 mg/kg (medium blue line), and esketamine 1.0 mg/kg (dark blue line). The horizontal dashed line at 0.5 probability (50%) intersects with each curve at the minimum alveolar concentration value: 2.06% for control, 1.77% for esketamine 0.5 mg/kg, and 1.42% for esketamine 1.0 mg/kg. The progressive leftward shift of the curves with increasing esketamine dosage illustrates the dose-dependent reduction in sevoflurane requirements.
|
The clinical benefits of esketamine extended beyond anesthetic reduction. Secondary outcomes revealed clear dose-dependent effects favoring the higher dose (Table 2). The 1.0 mg/kg group showed significantly improved cooperation during anesthesia induction compared to the control (p < 0.001), while the 0.5 mg/kg group showed no difference (p = 0.756). This dose-dependent pattern persisted through recovery: only the higher dose significantly reduced emergence delirium incidence (13.8% versus 46.4%, p = 0.007) and postoperative negative behavioral changes at day 3 (20.7% versus 53.6%, p = 0.010). Parents whose children received the higher dose reported significantly greater satisfaction (p = 0.022).
![]() |
Table 2 Secondary Outcomes
|
Importantly, these benefits came without compromising safety or prolonging recovery. Emergence times and PACU discharge readiness were similar across all treatment groups (p = 0.331 and p = 0.589, respectively). The incidence of adverse events (including bradycardia, hypotension, laryngospasm, hypoxemia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and nightmares) showed no significant differences between groups, and no serious complications occurred throughout the study.
Discussion
Our findings demonstrate that intranasal esketamine premedication significantly reduces sevoflurane requirements during LMA insertion in pediatric patients in a dose-dependent manner. Both tested dosages (0.5 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg) produced clinically meaningful reductions compared to the control, with the higher dose providing approximately twice the effect. The 1.0 mg/kg dose conferred additional clinical benefits beyond anesthetic sparing, including enhanced induction cooperation, decreased emergence delirium, and reduced postoperative negative behavioral changes at day 3 postoperatively. Crucially, these advantages were achieved without extending recovery time or increasing adverse events.
These results build upon established research on NMDA in anesthesia practice. Chen et al showed that low-dose ketamine effectively reduces sevoflurane requirements for suppressing adrenergic responses during surgical procedures,25 while Hamp et al26 reported similar dose-dependent reductions with S-ketamine administration. Our findings advance this knowledge by demonstrating that the intranasal route achieves comparable anesthetic-sparing effects to intravenous administration while offering distinct advantages for pediatric patients, particularly avoiding injection-related distress. The observed dose-dependent relationship is consistent with known NMDA receptor antagonism pharmacological principles.
Beyond anesthetic reduction, our study revealed important behavioral benefits. Intranasal esketamine at 1.0 mg/kg significantly reduced emergence delirium (13.8% versus 46.4%) and subsequent behavioral disturbances (20.7% versus 53.6%). These improvements align with Chen et al27 who demonstrated that intravenous ketamine infusion (1 mg/kg bolus followed by 1 mg/kg/h infusion) reduced emergence delirium from 46% to 22% in children. Several mechanisms may explain these findings. Esketamine’s anti-inflammatory properties could counteract surgery-induced neuroinflammation linked to postoperative behavioral changes.28,29 Furthermore, esketamine’s neuroprotective effects may reduce physiological stress responses to surgical and anesthetic stimuli, potentially protecting the developing brain from adverse changes.30,31
Several factors limit the interpretation of our results. The absence of pharmacokinetic measurements precluded detailed characterization of intranasal esketamine absorption profiles. Although we selected a 20-minute premedication interval based on published data indicating peak sedative effects at approximately 16 minutes,11 this fixed timing may not have captured peak drug concentrations in all patients. Our single-center design involving a specific patient population undergoing eye muscle surgery may limit applicability to other pediatric surgical contexts. Testing only two doses provides incomplete information about the optimal dose across different age groups. Additionally, the varying sevoflurane concentrations required by the Dixon methodology could theoretically affect secondary outcomes, although the substantial separation between group values makes this unlikely. Finally, despite careful blinding protocols, esketamine’s recognizable clinical effects may have compromised blinding in some cases.
Nevertheless, our study maintains high methodological standards. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design ensures robust internal validity. The Dixon sequential allocation method provided precise measurements of anesthetic requirement while protecting children from inappropriate depth. Our comprehensive pharmacodynamic and clinical outcomes assessment offers practitioners complete information about intranasal esketamine’s effects. This approach demonstrates the quantitative reduction in sevoflurane requirements and the meaningful clinical improvements in children’s perioperative experience.
Conclusion
Intranasal esketamine premedication significantly reduces sevoflurane requirements for LMA insertion in pediatric patients, with the 1.0 mg/kg dose achieving optimal results: 30.6% reduction in anesthetic requirements, improved induction cooperation, and decreased emergence agitation without prolonging recovery. These findings offer clinicians an evidence-based strategy to minimize volatile anesthetic exposure while maintaining airway safety. Although our single-center study involved a specific population undergoing strabismus surgery with one experienced operator, the results demonstrate clear clinical benefits. Future multicenter trials with diverse populations and practitioners should validate these findings and optimize dosing across age groups. Nevertheless, our data establish intranasal esketamine as a valuable tool for enhancing both safety and efficacy in pediatric anesthesia practice.
Data Sharing Statement
The corresponding author (Yanling Liao, Email: [email protected]) will make the deidentified participant data supporting this study’s findings available upon reasonable request with a methodologically sound proposal. Data will become accessible six months after publication and remain available for three years thereafter. Requestors will be required to sign a data access agreement.
Acknowledgments
We sincerely thank Professor Yusheng Yao for his valuable guidance, and all participating children and their families for their cooperation. Throughout this study, we also acknowledge the dedicated support provided by the anesthesiologists, surgeons, and nursing staff at Fujian Provincial Hospital.
Author Contributions
All authors made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that is in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas; took part in drafting, revising or critically reviewing the article; gave final approval of the version to be published; have agreed on the journal to which the article has been submitted; and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Funding
This study was funded by the Science and Technology Program of Haicang District of Xiamen, China (No. 350205Z20232004), Natural Science Foundation of Xiamen, China (No. 3502Z202374068), the Fujian Provincial Health Technology Project (No. 2024CXA046), the Special Project of the National Natural Science Foundation Basic Research Enhancement Program (No. JCZX202404), and the Joint Funds for the Innovation of Science and Technology, Fujian Province (No. 2023Y9309).
Disclosure
The authors declare no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
1. Lerman J. Induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane in children: curiosities and controversies. Paediatr Anaesth. 2022;32(10):1100–1103. doi:10.1111/pan.14537
2. Hsu G, von Ungern-Sternberg BS, Engelhardt T. Pediatric airway management. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(3):276–283. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000000993
3. Li L, Zhang Z, Yao Z, et al. The impact of laryngeal mask versus other airways on perioperative respiratory adverse events in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Surg. 2019;64:40–48. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2019.02.020
4. Chao JY, Legatt AD, Yozawitz EG, et al. Electroencephalographic findings and clinical behavior during induction of anesthesia with sevoflurane in human infants: a prospective observational study. Anesth Analg. 2020;130(6):e161–e164. doi:10.1213/ANE
5. Gibert S, Sabourdin N, Louvet N, et al. Epileptogenic effect of sevoflurane: determination of the minimal alveolar concentration of sevoflurane associated with major epileptoid signs in children. Anesthesiology. 2012;117(6):1253–1261. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318273e272
6. Aoyama K, Furuta M, Ameye L, et al. Risk factors for pediatric emergence delirium: a systematic review. Can J Anaesth. 2025;72(3):384–396. doi:10.1007/s12630-024-02889-w
7. Dave NM. Premedication and induction of anesthesia in pediatric patients. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63(9):713–720. doi:10.4103/ija.IJA_491_19
8. Pereira EMM, Nascimento TSD, da Costa MG, et al. Comparison of intranasal dexmedetomidine versus oral midazolam for premedication in pediatric patients: an updated meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2024;74(5):844520. doi:10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844520
9. Savla JR, Ghai B, Bansal D, et al. Effect of intranasal dexmedetomidine or oral midazolam premedication on sevoflurane EC 50 for successful laryngeal mask airway placement in children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24(4):433–439. doi:10.1111/pan.12358
10. Yao Y, Qian B, Lin Y, et al. Intranasal dexmedetomidine premedication reduces minimum alveolar concentration of sevoflurane for laryngeal mask airway insertion and emergence delirium in children: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(5):492–498. doi:10.1111/pan.12574
11. Huang J, Liu D, Bai J, et al. Median effective dose of esketamine for intranasal premedication in children with congenital heart disease. BMC Anesthesiol. 2023;23(1):129. doi:10.1186/s12871-023-02077-1
12. Zhang BS, Zhang XJ, Wang CA. The efficacy and safety of esketamine in pediatric anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2023;46(12):5661–5663. doi:10.1016/j.asjsur.2023.08.073
13. Hebbar KC, Reddy A, Luthra A, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of intranasal atomized dexmedetomidine versus intranasal atomized ketamine as a premedication for sedation and anxiolysis in children undergoing spinal dysraphism surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2024;41(4):288–295. doi:10.1097/EJA.0000000000001936
14. Hopewell S, Chan AW, Collins GS, et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomized trials. BMJ. 2025;389:e081123. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081123
15. Joshi GP, Abdelmalak BB, Weigel WA, et al. American society of anesthesiologists practice guidelines for preoperative fasting: carbohydrate-containing clear liquids with or without protein, chewing gum, and pediatric fasting duration-A modular update of the 2017 American society of anesthesiologists practice guidelines for preoperative fasting. Anesthesiology. 2023;138(2):132–151. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000004381
16. Pace NL, Stylianou MP, Warltier DC. Advances in and limitations of up-and-down methodology: a précis of clinical use, study design, and dose estimation in anesthesia research. Anesthesiology. 2007;107(1):144–152. doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000267514.42592.2a
17. Yang C, Kang F, Meng W, et al. Minimum alveolar concentration-awake of sevoflurane is decreased in patients with Parkinson’s disease: an up-and-down sequential allocation trial. Clin Interv Aging. 2021;16:129–137. doi:10.2147/CIA.S291656
18. Abukawa Y, Takano K, Hobo Y, et al. The use of a scented face mask in pediatric patients may facilitate mask acceptance before anesthesia induction. Front Med Lausanne. 2023;10:1190728. doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1190728
19. Sikich N, Lerman J. Development and psychometric evaluation of the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(5):1138–1145. doi:10.1097/00000542-200405000-00015
20. Deshmukh PP, Chakole V. Post-anesthesia recovery: a comprehensive review of sampe, modified Aldrete, and white scoring systems. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e70935. doi:10.7759/cureus.70935
21. Sam CJ, Arunachalam PA, Manivasagan S, et al. Parental satisfaction with pediatric day-care surgery and its determinants in a tertiary care hospital. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2017;22(4):226–231. doi:10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_212_16
22. Jenkins BN, Kain ZN, Kaplan SH, et al. Revisiting a measure of child postoperative recovery: development of the post hospitalization behavior questionnaire for ambulatory surgery. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25(7):738–745. doi:10.1111/pan.12678
23. Görges M, Zhou G, Brant R, et al. Sequential allocation trial design in anesthesia: an introduction to methods, modeling, and clinical applications. Paediatr Anaesth. 2017;27(3):240–247. doi:10.1111/pan.13088
24. Oron AP, Souter MJ, Flournoy N. Understanding research methods: up-and-down designs for dose-finding. Anesthesiology. 2022;137(2):137–150. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000004282
25. Chen C, Pang Q, Tu A, et al. Effect of low-dose ketamine on MAC BAR of sevoflurane in laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2021;46(1):121–127. doi:10.1111/jcpt.13263
26. Hamp T, Baron-Stefaniak J, Krammel M, et al. Effect of intravenous S-ketamine on the MAC of sevoflurane: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(6):1242–1248. doi:10.1016/j.bja.2018.08.023
27. Chen JY, Jia JE, Liu TJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and placebo on emergence agitation after strabismus surgery in children. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60(4):385–392. doi:10.1007/s12630-013-9886-x
28. Tu W, Yuan H, Zhang S, et al. Influence of anesthetic induction of propofol combined with esketamine on perioperative stress and inflammatory responses and postoperative cognition of elderly surgical patients. Am J Transl Res. 2021;13(3):1701–1709.
29. Wang T, Weng H, Zhou H, et al. Esketamine alleviates postoperative depression-like behavior through anti-inflammatory actions in mouse prefrontal cortex. J Affect Disord. 2022;307:97–107. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2022.03.072
30. Luo T, Deng Z, Ren Q, et al. Effects of esketamine on postoperative negative emotions and early cognitive disorders in patients undergoing non-cardiac thoracic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Anesth. 2024;95:111447. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111447
31. Sah A, Singewald N. The (neuro) inflammatory system in anxiety disorders and PTSD: potential treatment targets. Pharmacol Ther. 2025;269:108825. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera