Cited by 292Pain Management and Placebo EffectAnesthesia and Pain ManagementCancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response

A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients

Montgomery, G. H., Bovbjerg, D. H., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Goldfarb, A., Weltz, C. R., Schechter, C., Graff-Zivin, J. +3 more·2007·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective. METHODS: We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review. RESULTS: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djm106

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Mann, 1998, CRNA : the clinical forum for nurse anesthetists, 9, 19
  2. 1984, Cancer, 58, 2635
  3. Faymonville, 1995, Regional anesthesia, 20, 145
  4. Wolfe, 2004, The Journal of Rheumatology, 31, 1896
  5. 1992, Anesthesiology, 77, 162, 10.1097/00000542-199207000-00023 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Montgomery, G. H., Bovbjerg, D. H., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Goldfarb, A., Weltz, C. R., Schechter, C., Graff-Zivin, J., Tatrow, K., Price, D. D., & Silverstein, J. H.
Affiliations
Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2007-08-28
Volume
99
Issue
17
Pages
1304-1312
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2127020060
Cited by
292
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 18
FWCI
8.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA81137, CA105222)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Pain Management and Placebo Effect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Keywords
hypnosis, breast cancer surgery, postoperative pain, nausea, fatigue, propofol, lidocaine, fentanyl, midazolam, breast-conserving surgery, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcomes, attentional control, sedation, analgesia, operating room time
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Costs and Cost Analysis, Female, Humans, Hypnosis, Mastectomy, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Mastectomy, Segmental, Treatment Outcome, Patient Selection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review