This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (37) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Montgomery, G. H. Articles by Bovbjerg, D. H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Montgomery, G. H. Articles by Bovbjerg, D. H. Related Collections Surgery Anesthetic Techniques

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

The Effectiveness of Adjunctive Hypnosis with Surgical Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Guy H. Montgomery, PhD^*, Daniel David, PhD^*, Gary Winkel, PhD^*, Jeffrey H. Silverstein, MD, and Dana H. Bovbjerg, PhD^*

*Biobehavioral Medicine Program, Cancer Prevention and Control, Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer Center and Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Guy H. Montgomery, PhD, Biobehavioral Medicine Program, Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer Center, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Box 1130, 1 Gustave L. Levy Pl, New York, NY 10029-6574. Address e-mail to guy.montgomery{at}mssm.edu

Hypnosis is a nonpharmacologic means for managing adverse surgical side effects. Typically, reviews of the hypnosis literature have been narrative in nature, focused on specific outcome domains (e.g., patients’ self-reported pain), and rarely address the impact of different modes of the hypnosis administration. Therefore, it is important to take a quantitative approach to assessing the beneficial impact of adjunctive hypnosis for surgical patients, as well as to examine whether the beneficial impact of hypnosis goes beyond patients’ pain and method of the administration. We conducted meta-analyses of published controlled studies (n = 20) that used hypnosis with surgical patients to determine: 1) overall, whether hypnosis has a significant beneficial impact, 2) whether there are outcomes for which hypnosis is relatively more effective, and 3) whether the method of hypnotic induction (live versus audiotape) affects hypnosis efficacy. Our results revealed a significant effect size (D = 1.20), indicating that surgical patients in hypnosis treatment groups had better outcomes than 89% of patients in control groups. No significant differences were found between clinical outcome categories or between methods of the induction of hypnosis. These results support the position that hypnosis is an effective adjunctive procedure for a wide variety of surgical patients.

IMPLICATIONS: A meta-analytical review of studies using hypnosis with surgical patients was performed to determine the effectiveness of the procedure. The results indicated that patients in hypnosis treatment groups had better clinical outcomes than 89% of patients in control groups. These data strongly support the use of hypnosis with surgical patients.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. J. Schwartz A Pilot Study of Patients in Postoperative Cardiac Surgery Music and Medicine, July 1, 2009; 1(1): 70 - 74. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Schnur, D. H. Bovbjerg, D. David, K. Tatrow, A. B. Goldfarb, J. H. Silverstein, C. R. Weltz, and G. H. Montgomery Hypnosis Decreases Presurgical Distress in Excisional Breast Biopsy Patients Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2008; 106(2): 440 - 444. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. H. Montgomery, D. H. Bovbjerg, J. B. Schnur, D. David, A. Goldfarb, C. R. Weltz, C. Schechter, J. Graff-Zivin, K. Tatrow, D. D. Price, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Brief Hypnosis Intervention to Control Side Effects in Breast Surgery Patients J Natl Cancer Inst, September 5, 2007; 99(17): 1304 - 1312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. H. Hunt, D. Choquette, B. N. Craig, C. De Angelis, F. Habal, G. Fulthorpe, J. I. Stewart, A. G.G. Turpie, and P. Davis Approach to managing musculoskeletal pain: Acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, or traditional NSAIDs? Can Fam Physician, July 1, 2007; 53(7): 1177 - 1184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. L. Rogovik and R. D. Goldman Hypnosis for treatment of pain in children Can Fam Physician, May 1, 2007; 53(5): 823 - 825. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. H. K. Wobst Hypnosis and Surgery: Past, Present, and Future Anesth. Analg., May 1, 2007; 104(5): 1199 - 1208. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. K. Lutgendorf, E. V. Lang, K. S. Berbaum, D. Russell, M. L. Berbaum, H. Logan, E. G. Benotsch, S. Schulz-Stubner, D. Turesky, and D. Spiegel Effects of Age on Responsiveness to Adjunct Hypnotic Analgesia During Invasive Medical Procedures Psychosom Med, February 1, 2007; 69(2): 191 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. F. White Use of Alternative Medical Therapies in the Perioperative Period: Is It Time to Get on Board? Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2007; 104(2): 251 - 254. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. H. Stewart Hypnosis in Contemporary Medicine Mayo Clin. Proc., April 1, 2005; 80(4): 511 - 524. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Cyna, G. L. McAuliffe, and M. I. Andrew Hypnosis for pain relief in labour and childbirth: a systematic review Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2004; 93(4): 505 - 511. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]