…

The trial’s design reflects a growing recognition within perioperative medicine that pain after surgery is not purely a peripheral phenomenon but a process shaped substantially by psychological state in the hours before incision. Preoperative anxiety is consistently associated with heightened pain sensitivity after surgery, a relationship thought to involve increased sympathetic tone, elevated circulating catecholamines, and amplified attention to nociceptive signals. In the specific population studied here—young women presenting for elective abortion under non-intubated general anesthesia—the emotional burden is compounded by the circumstances of the procedure itself, which can carry feelings of guilt, grief, or social pressure. The investigators therefore chose an intervention window that many pharmacological studies overlook: the thirty minutes immediately before surgery, when anxiety typically peaks and when sedative premedication is often avoided so that patients can consent and ambulate safely.

Five-element music therapy derives from the Traditional Chinese Medicine framework that maps five tones—gong, shang, jue, zhi, and yu—onto the five zang organs and their associated emotional states. In classical theory, each tone is believed to exert a regulatory influence on a corresponding organ system and its linked emotion, and therapeutic playlists are constructed to restore balance among these elements. From a modern neuroscience perspective, such structured, slow-tempo music can plausibly operate through several converging mechanisms: activation of descending inhibitory pain pathways via the periaqueductal gray, reduction of cortisol and sympathetic arousal, distraction of attentional resources away from threat appraisal, and modulation of the autonomic balance toward parasympathetic dominance. The use of noise-cancelling headphones is a methodologically meaningful detail, because ambient operating-room noise—alarms, instrument clatter, and staff conversation—can undermine the relaxation response and introduce uncontrolled variability in what patients actually hear.

The analgesic regimen against which the music was tested deserves attention. Parecoxib sodium is a water-soluble prodrug of valdecoxib that selectively inhibits cyclooxygenase-2, reducing prostaglandin-mediated sensitization of peripheral nociceptors without the platelet and gastrointestinal liabilities of non-selective NSAIDs. A single 40 mg intravenous dose given before the audio intervention positions the drug for peak effect during the operative period and the early recovery phase, consistent with the principles of preemptive and multimodal analgesia. Propofol provides the sedative-hypnotic component of the non-intubated anesthetic, while nalbuphine, a mixed opioid agonist-antagonist acting primarily at kappa and mu receptors, contributes analgesia with a comparatively favorable profile regarding respiratory depression and, importantly, postoperative nausea and vomiting. The choice of nalbuphine rather than a full mu-agonist reflects a deliberate strategy to limit emetic complications, which are a common reason for delayed discharge after short gynecological procedures.

Against this multimodal pharmacological backdrop, the observed one-point difference in peak movement-evoked pain on a ten-point scale is clinically meaningful rather than trivial. Movement-evoked pain is increasingly regarded as a more functionally relevant endpoint than pain at rest, because it captures the pain that actually limits mobilization, dressing, and discharge readiness. A reduction of this magnitude, achieved without adding any drug, suggests that the music intervention recruited endogenous modulatory systems that pharmacotherapy alone did not fully engage. The dramatic difference in rescue analgesia requirements—2 percent in the music group versus 26 percent in controls—reinforces this interpretation, since rescue medication is typically requested when patients perceive their pain as intolerable rather than merely present.

The anxiety findings warrant careful reading. Both the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory trended lower in the music group, but the confidence intervals crossed zero, and the differences were not statistically significant. Several factors may explain this. The trial enrolled 101 randomized participants, which limits power for detecting modest between-group differences in continuous psychological scores, particularly when baseline anxiety levels in a young, elective-surgery population may be relatively heterogeneous. In addition, the postoperative timing of the anxiety assessments means that the measurements were confounded by the patients’ pain experience itself; pain relief in the music group may have partially masked or absorbed the anxiety benefit, making the two outcomes difficult to disentangle. It is also possible that the anxiolytic effect of the music was most pronounced during the preoperative listening period itself and had partially waned by the time of postoperative assessment.

The absence of a difference in nausea and vomiting between groups is consistent with the pharmacology of the anesthetic protocol. Because nalbuphine was used in both arms and the emetogenic burden was already low, there was limited headroom for a psychological intervention to further reduce these events. This outcome should not be interpreted as evidence against music therapy’s broader physiological effects; rather, it illustrates the importance of the baseline event rate and the choice of comparator when evaluating adjunctive interventions.

The satisfaction gap—94 percent versus 68 percent—is among the most striking results and arguably the most relevant to routine clinical operations. Patient-reported satisfaction integrates pain control, perceived care, sense of agency, and emotional comfort into a single judgment, and it is increasingly used as a quality metric in ambulatory surgery. A non-pharmacological intervention that requires no additional drugs, carries essentially no physiological risk, and can be delivered by existing nursing staff with inexpensive equipment offers an unusually favorable risk-benefit and cost profile, provided the effect is reproducible.

Several limitations frame the interpretation. The single-center design at one Chinese hospital means that the patient population, cultural familiarity with five-element music, and institutional perioperative practices may not generalize elsewhere. The control condition—headphones without music—controls for the device and for the time spent in a quiet, isolated setting, but it cannot fully blind participants or the assessing staff, so expectancy effects on subjective outcomes such as pain scores cannot be excluded. The exclusive enrollment of women aged 18 to 35 leaves open whether the intervention works equally well in older patients or in those with chronic pain conditions. Finally, the trial tested a single standardized listening session; whether repeated or longer exposure, different musical selections, or delivery during recovery rather than before surgery would alter the results remains unexamined.

From a mechanistic standpoint, the study adds to a body of literature suggesting that music-based interventions can reduce acute postoperative pain and opioid consumption across surgical contexts, including cesarean delivery, laparoscopy, and minor orthopedic procedures. What distinguishes the present work is the combination of a TCM-derived musical framework with a modern multimodal analgesic protocol and a rigorously defined primary endpoint measured at three postoperative timepoints. The five-element framework itself has limited direct neuroscientific validation, and the trial cannot determine whether the specific tonal structure mattered or whether any calming, culturally familiar music delivered under identical conditions would have produced similar results. Disentangling the specific contribution of the five-element composition from the generic effects of preoperative music listening is a natural target for future factorial studies.

For clinicians, the practical takeaway is that a low-cost, low-risk preoperative listening session can be layered onto an existing multimodal analgesic regimen with measurable benefit in pain scores, rescue analgesia use, and patient satisfaction. For researchers, the trial highlights the value of studying the preoperative window as an active therapeutic period rather than dead time, and it underscores the need for larger multicenter trials with blinded outcome assessment where feasible, longer follow-up for persistent postoperative pain, and standardized reporting of the musical stimuli so that other groups can replicate the intervention precisely. The trial’s registration in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and its prospective design strengthen confidence in the primary findings, while the open-access publication supports independent scrutiny of the data as the evidence base for perioperative music therapy continues to mature.

Subject of Research: …

Article Title: Preoperative five-element music via noise-cancelling headphones as an adjunct to parecoxib-based analgesia for postoperative pain after painless induced abortion: a randomized clinical trial

Article References: Cao, X., Weng, Z., Wei, Y., Xiao, H., Ji, Y., Song, S., Li, C., Zhang, S., Lin, J., & Li, X. (2026). Preoperative five-element music via noise-cancelling headphones as an adjunct to parecoxib-based analgesia for postoperative pain after painless induced abortion: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-026-05633-7

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12906-026-05633-7

Keywords: music therapy, postoperative pain, parecoxib, five-element music, randomized clinical trial, Traditional Chinese Medicine, anxiety, induced abortion, noise-cancelling headphones, analgesia, propofol, patient satisfaction

The research team, led by Xiaoyu Yang and Xiaoning Jiang with corresponding author Fan Wang, drew on trials conducted in patients aged 60 and older undergoing major orthopedic procedures such as hip and knee surgery. These operations are among the most common reasons older adults end up in the operating room, and they carry a substantial risk of delirium. The condition is not a minor side effect. Postoperative delirium is associated with longer hospital stays, increased rates of institutional discharge, accelerated cognitive decline, and higher mortality. For decades, clinicians have relied mainly on non-drug prevention strategies, such as reorientation protocols, sleep hygiene, early mobilization, and vision and hearing aids, because no pharmacological approach had been clearly validated.

The appeal of drug-based prevention lies in the biology of delirium itself. Scientists believe that surgical trauma triggers a cascade of neuroinflammatory events. Tissue injury releases damage-associated molecular patterns, which activate immune signaling and can drive elevations in inflammatory molecules such as interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor-alpha. These signals can disrupt the blood-brain barrier and disturb neurotransmitter systems, particularly acetylcholine and the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor pathways, tipping the aging brain into the acute disorganization that defines delirium. The drugs tested in the trials reviewed here were chosen precisely because they interact with these pathways, either by damping inflammation or by protecting neurons from stress-related injury.

To compare these strategies fairly, the researchers performed a network meta-analysis, a statistical technique that allows both direct comparisons, from trials that tested two treatments against each other, and indirect comparisons, inferred through shared comparators such as placebo. They systematically searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating perioperative pharmacological strategies for postoperative delirium or postoperative cognitive outcomes in older orthopedic patients. Crucially, for the primary quantitative analysis, delirium had to be diagnosed using a validated instrument, such as the Confusion Assessment Method or the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method, rather than by informal clinical impression. This requirement matters because delirium is notoriously under-recognized at the bedside, and screening tools dramatically change detection rates.

Eighteen randomized controlled trials encompassing 4,132 participants made it into the systematic review. Of these, thirteen trials involving 3,466 participants formed the primary network for the delirium analysis, containing nine distinct treatment nodes. The team used a frequentist random-effects model and, importantly, modeled active drug comparisons separately from inert placebo or standard-care controls, a methodological choice designed to avoid distorting effect estimates. They reported odds ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals, which describe the precision of the observed effect, and also 95 percent prediction intervals, which estimate the range of effects one might expect in a future, real-world setting. They ranked treatments using P-scores, built a league table of all pairwise comparisons, mapped how much each trial contributed to the network, and graded the certainty of the evidence using a GRADE and CINeMA-style framework.

The headline findings were striking. Four interventions produced odds ratios whose confidence and prediction intervals both excluded the value of one, the threshold of no effect. An anti-inflammatory bundle showed the largest estimated benefit, with an odds ratio of 0.21, meaning roughly a 79 percent reduction in the odds of delirium compared with control. Dexmedetomidine produced an odds ratio of 0.37, dexamethasone 0.36, and parecoxib 0.46. Among these, dexmedetomidine stood out for a different reason: it was supported by the largest evidence base in the network, making its estimate the most trustworthy of the group. Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 adrenergic agonist, a sedative that calms patients without suppressing respiration, and it is already widely used in intensive care and anesthesia settings, which makes a preventive role particularly practical.

Not every candidate drug fared as well. Esketamine, an anesthetic agent acting on the NMDA receptor that had attracted interest for its neuroprotective potential, did not show a statistically significant protective effect against placebo, with an odds ratio of 0.77 and a confidence interval spanning 0.33 to 1.76. The researchers also tested whether the type of surgery modified how well the drugs worked, comparing effects across different orthopedic contexts. It did not. Interaction tests for dexmedetomidine, parecoxib, and propofol all returned non-significant p-values of 0.26, 0.50, and 0.53 respectively, meaning the analysis demonstrated no surgical-stress-dependent treatment hierarchy. In other words, there was no evidence that a particular operation type made one drug strategy clearly superior to another.

The authors were careful to temper enthusiasm with appropriate scientific caution. Certainty of the evidence remains moderate at best, and the network is sparse, with no independent closed loops, meaning the indirect estimates rest on relatively thin connections between trials. Several of the promising effect estimates, including the eye-catching figure for the anti-inflammatory bundle, rest on single small trials that could overstate true benefit. This is a well-known phenomenon in meta-analysis, where early small studies often report larger effects than later, better-powered replications. The prediction intervals, which account for between-study heterogeneity, help guard against false confidence, and the fact that four interventions passed that stricter test is genuinely encouraging, but the authors concluded that adequately powered, standardized head-to-head randomized trials are still needed before any drug can be recommended for routine prophylaxis.

Even so, the implications for perioperative medicine are significant. Hip fracture repair and joint replacement are performed millions of times each year worldwide, and the population undergoing them continues to age. If a low-cost, well-characterized drug such as dexmedetomidine, delivered during and around surgery, can meaningfully cut delirium risk, the potential public health impact is enormous, spanning shorter hospitalizations, fewer nursing home admissions, and preserved cognition for vulnerable patients. The study also delivers a methodological message to the field: future trials should use validated delirium screening instruments, consistent dosing protocols, and direct comparisons between the leading candidates rather than yet another placebo-controlled test of a single agent. Until those head-to-head studies arrive, this analysis provides the clearest map yet of which pharmacological strategies deserve the spotlight, and it places a familiar sedative at the center of one of geriatric surgery’s most urgent unanswered questions.

Subject of Research: Pharmacological prevention of postoperative delirium in older adults undergoing major orthopedic surgery

Article Title: Perioperative pharmacological prophylaxis of postoperative delirium after major orthopedic surgery in older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Article References: Yang, X., Jiang, X., Xiao, R., Liu, J., Guo, Y., Ji, Y., Zhao, F., & Wang, F. (2026). Perioperative pharmacological prophylaxis of postoperative delirium after major orthopedic surgery in older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Geriatrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-026-08430-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12877-026-08430-6

Keywords: postoperative delirium, dexmedetomidine, orthopedic surgery, network meta-analysis, older adults, geriatrics, anesthesia, neuroinflammation, randomized controlled trials, dexamethasone, parecoxib, perioperative medicine