Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Multimodal Analgesia, Current Concepts, and Acute Pain Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of acute pain following surgery using a multimodal approach is recommended by the American Society of Anesthesiologists whenever possible. In addition to opioids, drugs with differing mechanisms of actions target pain pathways resulting in additive and/or synergistic effects. Some of these agents include alpha 2 agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, gabapentinoids, dexamethasone, NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and duloxetine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Alpha 2 agonists have been shown to have opioid-sparing effects, but can cause hypotension and bradycardia and must be taken into consideration when administered. Acetaminophen is commonly used in a multimodal approach, with recent evidence lacking for the use of IV over oral formulations in patients able to take medications by mouth. Studies involving gabapentinoids have been mixed with some showing benefit; however, future large randomized controlled trials are needed. Ketamine is known to have powerful analgesic effects and, when combined with magnesium and other agents, may have a synergistic effect. Dexamethasone reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting and has been demonstrated to be an effective adjunct in multimodal analgesia. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, duloxetine, is a novel agent, but studies are limited and further evidence is needed. Overall, a multimodal analgesic approach should be used when treating postoperative pain, as it can potentially reduce side effects and provide the benefit of treating pain through different cellular pathways.

Comparison of Dexamethasone-Dimenhydrinate and Dexamethasone-Ondansetron in Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting in Postoperative Patients

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting is one of the most common problems after implementation of general anesthesia. The incidence can reach 80% in high-risk patients, depending on the type of surgery. In our study, we aimed to compare dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate and dexamethasone-ondansetron combinations in prevention of nausea and vomiting in postoperative patients.

METHOD

Sixty 18-65-year-olds ASAI-II females who underwent rhinoplasty were included in the study. Patients were randomly included in two groups: Dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate group (group DD) and dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO). All patients received dexamethasone 8 mg iv after endotracheal intubation. Anesthesia continuation was established with sevoflurane, air-oxygen mixture and remifentanil infusion. At the 30th minute of the operation, group DO received ondansetron 4 mg iv and group DD received dimenhydrinate 1 mg/kg iv. For postoperative analgesia tramadol (1.5 mg/kg) iv, tenoksikam (20 mg) and afterward for postoperative patient-controlled tramadol was used. In the postoperative recovery room, nausea and vomiting were evaluated at the 30th, 60th, 120th minutes and at the end of 24 h. Total amount of tramadol was recorded. All results were statistically evaluated.

OBSERVATIONS

Demographics and Apfel risk scores of both groups were similar. Surgical operation duration (p = 0.038) and total preoperative remifentanil consumption were higher in group DD (p = 0.006). In group DO, nausea at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.001, p = 0.007), retching at 30 and 60 min (p = 0.002, p = 0.006) were higher than group DD. The additional antiemetic need in group DO was significantly higher at 30 min (p = 0.001). Postoperative analgesic consumption was similar in both groups.

RESULT

Our study revealed that dexamethasone-dimenhydrinate combination was more effective than dexamethasone-ondansetron in prevention of nausea and vomiting after rhinoplasty operations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Prediction of intraoperative nausea and vomiting in caesarean delivery under regional anaesthesia

Objectives

This study aimed to predict patients who have caesarean operations under regional anaesthesia and are at risk for intraoperative nausea and vomiting (IONV), for ultimately prompting anaesthetists and surgeons to take preventive measures.

Methods

This was a retrospective study on 209 patients who had caesarean section under spinal-epidural combined regional anaesthesia. The relevant medical history, such as severe nausea and vomiting in the first trimester, smoking, a history of motion sickness, and premenstrual syndrome (PMS), were obtained from the patients’ records and interviews.

Results

Patients who had a female neonate, a history of severe nausea and vomiting in the first trimester, and a history of PMS and motion sickness before pregnancy experienced a significantly higher rate of IONV. Smokers were less susceptible to IONV, but this was not significant.

Conclusion

This study shows that some factors in the medical history of a patient can help identify those who are more likely to suffer from IONV.

Association of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Incidence With Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio in Ambulatory Maxillofacial Surgery

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) constitutes an important factor in ambulatory surgery. The mechanisms of the antiemetic action of potent anti-inflammatory corticosteroids, which are used extensively for the treatment of PONV, as well as the association between PONV and inflammation, have not been investigated sufficiently. We aimed to establish the association between the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and postoperative antiemetic administration, as well as to investigate whether the NLR would be a biomarker for PONV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The anesthesia records of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II patients who underwent ambulatory routine oral surgery under general anesthesia were evaluated after we obtained ethical approval from the faculty ethics committee. A 5-point scale was used to score PONV. Metoclopramide (Metpamid, Istanbul, Turkey) was used as the first choice in patients who had a PONV scale score of 1 or higher. Data regarding metoclopramide administration during extubation and discharge periods were analyzed. Sixty-four patients were randomized and enrolled in the study with an NLR less than 2 (group I, n = 37) or an NLR greater than 2 (group II, n = 27), and metoclopramide administration was evaluated in each case. The association between the NLR and metoclopramide administration was analyzed statistically by a descriptive statistical method in detecting frequencies; the χ² test was used in comparison of the groups and the t test in independent groups.

RESULTS

The metoclopramide administration frequency for PONV was 5.4% in group I and 96.3% in group II. The metoclopramide administration frequency in group II was statistically higher than that in group I (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

We are of the opinion that the NLR can be easily calculated with data obtained from the complete blood count and could be a marker for PONV. Antiemetic prophylaxis could be given after evaluation of the NLR. However, we suggest that this result should be supported with further prospective studies using larger series.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia for oral and maxillofacial surgery

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common postoperative complications. Despite this, few papers have reported the incidence and independent risk factors associated with PONV in the context of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS). Therefore, we sought to determine the incidence of PONV, as well as to identify risk factors for the condition in patients who had undergone OMFS under general anesthesia.

Methods

A total of 372 patients' charts were reviewed, and the following potential risk factors for PONV were analyzed: age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, history of PONV and/or motion sickness, duration of anesthesia, amount of blood loss, nasogastric tube insertion and retention and postoperative opioid used. Univariate analysis was performed, and variables with a P-value less than 0.1 were entered into a multiple logistic regression analysis, wherein P-values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

The overall incidence of PONV was 25.26%. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, the following variables were independent predictors of PONV: age < 30 years, history of PONV and/or motion sickness, and anesthesia duration > 4 h. Furthermore, the number of risk factors was proportional to the incidence of PONV.

Conclusions

The incidence of PONV in patients who have undergone OMFS varies from center to center depending on patient characteristics, as well as on anesthetic and surgical practice. Identifying the independent risk factors for PONV will allow physicians to optimize prophylactic, antiemetic regimens.

Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials was performed to update the present evidence about the safety and efficacy of dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics versus single antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

A computer literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase was conducted to identify the relevant randomized controlled trials. In addition, a manual search of reference lists of the retrieved articles was conducted. Relevant outcomes were pooled as odds ratio (OR) by RevMan version 5.3 for windows.

RESULTS

Pooled data from 14 RCTs (1542 patients) favored dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics over single antiemetics as a prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.27 to 0.54], p < 0.00001), late postoperative period (OR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.56], p < 0.00001), and overall postoperative period (OR = 0.34, 95% CI [0.23 to 0.51], p < 0.00001). Subsequently, rescue antiemetic usage was significantly lower in the combination group (OR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.16 to 0.41], p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis showed that all combinations of dexamethasone and other antiemetics were superior to corresponding singel antiemetics except for the combination of dexamethasone and ramosetron which was not superior to ramosetron alone in all postoperative periods and the combination of dexamethasone and granisetron which was not superior to granisetron alone in the early postoperative period (OR = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07 to 1.01], p = 0.05). For all adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone combined with other antiemetics provided better prophylaxis than single antiemetics against postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The underlying mechanism of dexamethasone action and its optimal dose should be further investigated.

Factors associated to post-operative nausea and vomiting following oral and maxillofacial surgery: a prospective study

AIM

This study aims to address and assess possible factors associated with nausea and vomiting (NV) following oral and maxillofacial surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in the period from December 2013 to January 2016 targeting all attended cases in that period. For statistical analysis, Pearson chi-square and Fisher tests were used to verify association and ANOVA and Student's t tests to test for significant difference, p was defined as ≤0.05. The sample group consisted of 207 patients with an average age of 33.56 years (±13.23), and 70.5% of subjects were male.

RESULTS

Calculations based on the predictive model showed that a female patient with prior history of nausea and vomiting who used opioids and had intra-oral surgical access would have a 96% chance of experiencing a nausea and vomiting episode. Other factors like age, being overweight, anesthesia, surgery duration, and duration of hospital stay also contribute so that these aspects must be paid careful attention prior to surgery to ensure a suitably orientated treatment that will avoid disturbances caused by post-operative nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of post-operative nausea and vomiting after oral and maxillofacial surgery was found to be more higher incidence associated to female patients who used opioids, who had a prior history of NV, whose surgery involved intra-oral access, who were in the second or third decades of their lives, who have above average weight, and who have long anesthesia when undergoing surgery, resulting in a long hospital stays.

Changes in the Welfare of an Injured Working Farm Dog Assessed Using the Five Domains Model

Simple Summary

The Five Domains Model is now increasingly used to assess the welfare status of a wide range of species in markedly different circumstances. Particular strengths are that the Model facilitates structured, systematic and comprehensive evaluations of animals’ negative and positive mental experiences, the overall balance of which underlies their welfare status or quality of life. Importantly, the Model also clarifies the specific internal and external factors that give rise to those experiences. The welfare evaluation published here is the first to use the most up-to-date version of the Model, and stands as a detailed example that may assist others undertaking such welfare evaluations in other species and contexts. Moreover, it is the first such evaluation of a companion animal. It employs a fictitious scenario involving a working farm dog before, during and after it sustains a serious hind leg injury requiring amputation and its subsequent rehoming as a pet. A wide range of negative and positive experiences are graded, interactions between them are revealed, and the balance between negative and positive states at different stages of the scenario is described. Such Model evaluations can highlight current practices that merit re-evaluation. More generally, when major welfare issues are identified, use of the Model could enhance expert witness participation in related prosecutions by highlighting scientifically supported connections between indicative physical/functional states and behaviours and their associated negative experiences in ill-treated animals. Five Domains Model evaluations can also facilitate quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions.

Abstract

The present structured, systematic and comprehensive welfare evaluation of an injured working farm dog using the Five Domains Model is of interest in its own right. It is also an example for others wanting to apply the Model to welfare evaluations in different species and contexts. Six stages of a fictitious scenario involving the dog are considered: (1) its on-farm circumstances before one hind leg is injured; (2) its entanglement in barbed wire, cutting it free and transporting it to a veterinary clinic; (3) the initial veterinary examination and overnight stay; (4) amputation of the limb and immediate post-operative recovery; (5) its first four weeks after rehoming to a lifestyle block; and (6) its subsequent life as an amputee and pet. Not all features of the scenario represent average-to-good practice; indeed, some have been selected to indicate poor practice. It is shown how the Model can draw attention to areas of animal welfare concern and, importantly, to how welfare enhancement may be impeded or facilitated. Also illustrated is how the welfare implications of a sequence of events can be traced and evaluated, and, in relation to specific situations, how the degrees of welfare compromise and enhancement may be graded. In addition, the choice of a companion animal, contrasting its welfare status as a working dog and pet, and considering its treatment in a veterinary clinical setting, help to highlight various welfare impacts of some practices. By focussing attention on welfare problems, the Model can guide the implementation of remedies, including ways of promoting positive welfare states. Finally, wider applications of the Five Domains Model are noted: by enabling both negative and positive welfare-relevant experiences to be graded, the Model can be applied to quality of life assessments and end-of-life decisions and, with particular regard to negative experiences, the Model can also help to strengthen expert witness testimony during prosecutions for serious ill treatment of animals.

Acupressure in Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-Risk Ambulatory Surgical Patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized blinded placebo-controlled research study was to investigate the effect of acupressure over 24 hours postoperatively for ambulatory surgical patients who are identified as high risk for PONV.

DESIGN

A randomized blinded placebo-controlled study design was implemented.

METHODS

Study enrollment criteria included four of five risk factors as defined in 2006 by American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses PONV/postdischarge nausea and vomiting guidelines: female, PONV history or motion sickness, nonsmoker, and volatile gas general anesthetic. One hundred ten patients were randomly assigned to an intervention (N = 57) acupressure bead patch or control (N = 53) sham acupressure patch group. Patients rated PONV on scale (0 to 10).

FINDINGS

Acupressure use at P6 preoperatively was statistically significant in reducing PONV in all three postoperative phases. One hundred ten patients were enrolled; 93 patients finished the study's three phases and nine were admitted postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Acupressure is an effective minimal risk and low-cost adjunctive therapy for prevention and treatment in ambulatory surgical patients at high risk for PONV. Further studies using other acupressure points should be conducted.

Providing value in ambulatory anesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to discuss current practices and changes in the field of ambulatory anesthesia, in both hospital and ambulatory surgery center settings. New trends in ambulatory settings are discussed and a review of the most current and comprehensive guidelines for the care of ambulatory patients with comorbid conditions such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), obstructive sleep apnea and diabetes mellitus are reviewed. Future direction and challenges to the field are highlighted.

RECENT FINDINGS

Ambulatory anesthesia continues to be in high demand for many reasons; patients and surgeons want their surgical procedures to be swift, involve minimal postoperative pain, have a transient recovery time, and avoid an admission to the hospital. Factors that have made this possible for patients are improved surgical equipment, volatile anesthetic improvement, ultrasound-guided regional techniques, non-narcotic adjuncts for pain control, and the minimization of PONV. The decrease in time spent in a hospital also decreases the risk of wound infection, minimizes missed days from work, and is a socioeconomically favorable model, when possible. Recently proposed strategies which will allow surgeons and anesthesiologists to continue to meet the growing demand for a majority of surgical cases being same-day include pharmacotherapies with less undesirable side-effects, integration of ultrasound-guided regional techniques, and preoperative evaluations in appropriate candidates via a telephone call the night prior to surgery. Multidisciplinary communication amongst caregivers continues to make ambulatory settings efficient, safe, and socioeconomically favorable.It is also important to note the future impact that healthcare reform will have specifically on ambulatory anesthesia. The enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will allow 32 million more people to gain access to preventive services that will require anesthesia such as screening colonoscopies. With this projected increase in the demand for anesthesia services nationwide comes the analysis of its financial feasibility. Some early data looking at endoscopist-administered sedation conclude that it offers higher patient satisfaction, there were less adverse effects than anesthesiologist-administered sedation, and is economically advantageous. This and future retrospective studies will help to guide healthcare policymakers and physicians to come to a conclusion about providing ambulatory services for these millions of patients.

SUMMARY

Ambulatory anesthesia's popularity continues to rise and anesthetic techniques will continue to morph and adapt to the needs of patients seeking ambulatory surgery. Alterations in already existing medications are promising as these modifications allow for quicker recovery from anesthesia or minimization of the already known undesirable side-effects. PONV, pain, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic comorbidities (hypertension, cardiac disease, and diabetes mellitus) are perioperative concerns in ambulatory settings as more patients are safely being treated in ambulatory settings. Regional anesthesia stands out as a modality that has multiple advantages to general anesthesia, providing a minimal recovery period and a decrease in postanesthesia care unit stay. The implementation of the Affordable Healthcare Act specifically affects ambulatory settings as the demand and need for patients to have screening procedures with anesthesia. The question remains what the best strategy is to meet the needs of our future patients while preserving economically feasibility within an already strained healthcare system.

"Ultra" E.R.A.S. in laparoscopic colectomy for cancer: discharge after the first flatus? A prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (E.R.A.S.) programs are now widely accepted in colonic laparoscopic resections because of faster recovery and less perioperative complications. The aim of this study was to assess safety and feasibility of discharging patients operated on by laparoscopic colectomy on postoperative day 2, so long as the first flatus has passed and in the absence of complication-related symptoms.

METHODS

This study was a non-inferiority, open-label, single-center, prospective, randomized study comparing "Ultra" to Classic E.R.A.S. with discharge on POD 2 and 4, respectively. Seven hundred and sixty-five patients with resectable non-metastatic colonic cancer were analyzed: 384 patients were assigned to "Ultra" E.R.A.S. and 381 to Classic E.R.A.S. Primary end-point was mortality; secondary end-points were morbidity, readmission and reoperation rate. Limitations are: it is a single-center experience; it is not double-blind, with the intrinsic risk of intentional or unconscious bias; exclusion criteria because of "non-compliance" may be considered arbitrary.

RESULTS

Mortality was 0.89 % in "Ultra" E.R.A.S. group and 0.59 % in Classic E.R.A.S. (p = 0.571). Morbidity was 34.1 % for "Ultra" E.R.A.S. arm and 35.4 % for Classic E.R.A.S. (p = 0.753). Readmissions were 5.6 % for "Ultra" E.R.A.S. and 5.9 % for Classic E.R.A.S. (p = 0.359). Reoperation rate was 3.8 % for "Ultra" ERAS and 4.7 % for Classic E.R.A.S. (p = 0.713). Multivariate regression analyses using Cox's proportional hazard model showed that mortality (primary end-point), morbidity, reoperation and readmission (secondary end-points) were not significantly influenced by the two different perioperative regimens; conversely, the global cost of "Ultra" E.R.A.S. regimen was more economically effective.

CONCLUSION

"Ultra" E.R.A.S. showed to be safe, actual and effective; discharge on postoperative day 2 after the first flatus passage, in the absence of complication-related symptoms, should be actively considered in a modern, multidisciplinary, multimodal laparoscopic management of colonic cancer.

Spanish survey on enhanced recovery after surgery

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to determine the interest in ERAS protocols, and the extent to which clinicians are familiar with and apply these protocols during perioperative care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Free access survey hosted on the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care; Spanish Association of Surgeons and Spanish Society of Enteral and Parenteral nutrition and ERAS Spain (GERM) websites conducted between September and December 2014.

RESULTS

The survey was answered by 272 professionals (44.5% anaesthetists, 45.2% general surgeons) from 110 hospitals, 73% of whom had experience in ERAS protocols. Most (86.1%) had specific knowledge of ERAS protocols, whereas only 50.9% were familiar with ERAS recommendations and 42.4% with GERM recommendations. Most (73.1%) respondents reported that ERAS protocols are performed in their hospitals, mainly in colorectal surgery (93%), and 52.2% reported that GERM/ERAS recommendations are followed. Nearly all (95.5%) would be interested in the development of multidisciplinary national guidelines. Less than half (46.6%) perform preoperative nutritional assessment, albeit without a universal malnutrition screening method (56.8%). Preoperative loading with carbohydrate drinks is carried out in only 51.4% of cases; nasogastric tube and drainage are avoided (79.3%), prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (73.4%), goal directed fluid therapy (73.3%), and active normothermia maintenance (87.4%) are performed. In most cases, mobilization (90.1%) and early feeding (87.9%) are performed. The leading causes of protocol failure are postoperative nausea and vomiting (46.5%) and ileus (58.9%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians in Spain are familiar with fast track protocols, although there is no overall consensus, and hospitals do not adhere to existing guidelines. Overall compliance with the items of the protocol is adequate, although perioperative nutritional management is poor.

Combination of dexamethasone and local anaesthetic solution in peripheral nerve blocks: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone decreases postoperative pain and prolongs the duration of local anaesthetic peripheral nerve blocks in studies including a limited number of patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of combining dexamethasone with local anaesthetic on sensory and motor peripheral nerve blockade in adults.

DESIGN

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched in Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 2013.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised trials testing dexamethasone combined with local anaesthetic.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1054 patients, 512 receiving perineural dexamethasone) were included. Ten studies evaluated dexamethasone for brachial plexus nerve block. Four to 10 mg dexamethasone-containing local anaesthetic solutions had a faster onset of action and resulted in a significant increase in the duration of analgesia [weighted mean difference (WMD) 351 min, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 288 to 413, P < 0.001] and motor blockade (WMD 277 min, 95% CI 167 to 387, P < 0.001) compared with local anaesthetic solutions alone. Time to onset of sensory and motor blocks was significantly reduced with dexamethasone (WMD -78 s, 95% CI -112 to -44, and -90 s, 95% CI -131 to -48, respectively). Dexamethasone significantly decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV, 9 vs. 27%, relative risk 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70). Subgroup analyses showed that dexamethasone approximately doubled the duration of postoperative analgesia when it was combined with intermediate-acting (lidocaine, mepivacaine) or long-acting (bupivacaine, ropivacaine) local anaesthetics.

CONCLUSION

Combining dexamethasone with local anaesthetics results in a prolongation of the duration of peripheral nerve block.

Intravenous Anesthesia With Bispectral Index Monitoring vs Inhalational Anesthesia for Rhytidoplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Minor adverse effects related to anesthesia are common and worrisome to patients, including perioperative vomiting, gagging on the endotracheal tube, incisional pain, and nausea. A previously published intravenous anesthesia protocol reports extremely low rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (<1%) and decreases in postoperative pain perception compared with rates reported following administration of inhalational anesthetics.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare postoperative outcomes in patients after administration of combined propofol and ketamine hydrochloride anesthesia with bispectral index monitoring (PKA-BIS protocol) vs inhalational anesthesia (IA) during lower rhytidoplasty.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a prospective, double-blind, randomized comparison trial of the PKA-BIS protocol and IA in 30 consecutive female patients undergoing rhytidoplasty by a single surgeon at a single outpatient surgery center from October 2013 to June 2014.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Outcome measures included nausea, vomiting, pain, overall feeling of well-being, time to awaken, time to discharge, and cost. Patient measures were recorded using a combination of a 40-item validated postoperative quality of recovery questionnaire (QOR-40) and visual analog scales (VASs). Results were recorded immediately after surgery and on postoperative days 1 and 7.

RESULTS

A statistically significant reduction in emergence time (mean [SD], 29.8 [10.6] vs 46.0 [10.2] minutes; P < .001) and time to meet discharge criteria (51.4 [19.3] vs 66.1 [12.9] minutes; P = .02) was seen in patients in the PKA-BIS group. Patient-reported (subjective) postoperative nausea (3 of 15 [20%] vs 7 of 15 patients [47%]; P = .12; χ2 = 2.40), vomiting (0 vs 2 of 15 patients [13%]; P = .14; χ2 = 2.14), and confusion on the day of surgery (3 of 15 [20%] vs 6 of 14 patients [43%]; P = .18; χ2 = 1.77) were also decreased in the PKA-BIS group, but these differences did not reach significance. Differences in global recovery scores (QOR-40 scores in the postanesthesia care unit, 158.13 [22.68] vs 155.33 [18.09]; P = .71; at day 1, 166.47 [26.39] vs 166.00 [16.00]; P = .96), postoperative overall feeling of well-being (VAS scores at day 1, 6.10 vs 6.26; at day 7, 7.49 vs 8.00), and postoperative pain perception (VAS scores at day 1, 3.40 vs 3.65; at day 7, 2.26 vs 1.81) between the PKA-BIS and IA groups, respectively, did not reach significance. The costs of anesthesia administration were similar between the PKA-BIS ($10.37/h) and IA ($8.47/h to $9.87/h) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PKA-BIS protocol for anesthesia appears to be a comparable alternative to traditional IA in patients undergoing elective rhytidoplasty. A larger patient sample size is needed to determine whether trends toward decreased nausea, vomiting, and postoperative confusion and differences in postoperative pain perception are significant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02410460.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1.

Comparison of the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study is to compare the effects of sugammadex and neostigmine, used for neuromuscular blockage antagonism, on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Our study was completed with 98 ASA I-II risk patients undergoing endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia. At the end of the surgery patients were randomly divided into two groups given 2mgkg^-1 sugammadex (Group S) or 50μgkg^-1 neostigmine plus 0.2mgkg^-1 atropine (Group N). Monitoring and recording times were set as 1 hour postoperative and from 1-6, 6-12, and 12-24hours. The anti-emetic amounts administered were recorded.

RESULTS

In the first hour postoperative 13 patients in Group N (27%) and 4 in Group S (8%) were observed to have nausea and/or vomiting and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.0016). During the 24 hours of monitoring there was no significant difference in the incidence and severity of PONV (p>0.05), however the number of patients given ondansetron for PONV treatment in Group N was statistically significantly higher than the number in Group S (16 in Group N, 6 in Group S, p<0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

At the end of our study comparing neostigmine with sugammadex for neuromuscular blockage antagonism, we found use of sugammadex had lower incidence of PONV in the postoperative 1st hour and less anti-emetic use in 24 hours of monitoring.

Prophylaxis and management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in enhanced recovery protocols: Expert Opinion statement from the American Society for Enhanced Recovery (ASER)

International experience and evidence-based practices have shown that reduction in variability through use of protocolized perioperative care improves surgical outcomes and reduces costs to patients and healthcare systems. In this series of Expert Opinions, we provide consensus recommendations for the various components of perioperative care to aid with the development of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for gastrointestinal surgery, part 2: consensus statement for anaesthesia practice

Background

The present interdisciplinary consensus review proposes clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthetic practice in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme.

Methods

Studies were selected with particular attention being paid to meta‐analyses, randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. For each item of the perioperative treatment pathway, available English‐language literature was examined and reviewed. The group reached a consensus recommendation after critical appraisal of the literature.

Results

This consensus statement demonstrates that anaesthesiologists control several preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative ERAS elements. Further research is needed to verify the strength of these recommendations.

Conclusions

Based on the evidence available for each element of perioperative care pathways, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ^®) Society presents a comprehensive consensus review, clinical considerations and recommendations for anaesthesia care in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery within an ERAS programme. This unified protocol facilitates involvement of anaesthesiologists in the implementation of the ERAS programmes and allows for comparison between centres and it eventually might facilitate the design of multi‐institutional prospective and adequately powered randomized trials.

Providing Value in Ambulatory Anesthesia in 2015

Ambulatory anesthesia's popularity continues to increase and techniques continue to adapt to the needs of patients. Alterations in existing medications are promising. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, pain, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic comorbidities are concerns in ambulatory settings. Regional anesthesia has multiple advantages over general anesthesia. The implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act specifically affects ambulatory settings as the demand and need for patients to undergo screening procedures with anesthesia. The question remains what the best strategy is to meet the needs of our future patients while preserving economic feasibility within an already strained health care system.

Effect of a single bolus of dexamethasone on intraoperative and postoperative pain in unilateral inguinal hernia surgery

Background and Aims:

Opioids are commonly used to provide perioperative analgesia, but have many side-effects. Addition of co-analgesics results in reducing the dosage and hence the side-effects of opioids. The objective of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl (1 micro/kg⁻¹) administered alone, with fentanyl (0.75 micro/kg⁻¹) and dexamethasone (8 mg) combination, in patients undergoing day care unilateral inguinal hernia repair.

Material and Methods:

Patients scheduled for the day care unilateral inguinal hernia repair were randomized to receive either saline and fentanyl 1 micro/kg⁻¹ (control group) or 8 mg dexamethasone with fentanyl 0.75 micro/kg⁻¹ (study group) immediately before induction of anesthesia in a double-blind clinical trial. Anesthesia technique and rescue analgesia regimen were standardized. Intraoperatively, pain was assessed based on hemodynamic variability and postoperatively by visual analog scale.

Results:

The mean heart rate, systolic and the diastolic blood pressure at 1, 5, 20 and at 30 min after incision, were significantly higher in the control group (P ≤ 0.001) when compared to the study group. Intra-operative rescue analgesia was required in 32 (100%) and 19 (59.4%) patients in control group and study group respectively (P = 0.0002). Mean pain scores measured at fixed time periods postoperatively were significantly higher in the control group when compared to study group (P ≤ 0.001). Postoperative rescue analgesia was needed in 32 (100%) versus 24 (75%) patients in the control group and study group respectively, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.285).

Conclusion:

We conclude that the addition of 8 mg of preoperative intravenous dexamethasone to 0.75 micro/kg⁻¹ fentanyl was effective in reducing intraoperative and postoperative pain in the 1^st h after unilateral inguinal hernia surgery.

Effective Dose of Ramosetron for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-Risk Patients

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common adverse events with an incidence of up to 80% in high-risk patients. Ramosetron, a selective 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is widely used to prevent PONV. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effective dose of ramosetron for the prevention of PONV in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Fifty-one patients were randomly allocated to 3 groups and were administered ramosetron 0.3 mg (group A), 0.45 mg (group B), or 0.6 mg (group C), at the end of their surgery. The episodes of PONV were assessed 1, 6, 24, and 48 hours after the injection and all the adverse events were observed.

RESULTS

The complete response rate in the postoperative period 6-24 hours after the anesthesia was higher in group C than in group A: 93% versus 44%. Group C's experience score of Rhodes index was lower than group A's: 0.81 ± 2.56 versus 3.94 ± 5.25. No adverse drug reaction could be observed in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The effective dose of ramosetron to be injected for the near-complete prophylaxis of PONV 6 to 24 hours after surgery in high-risk patients is a 0.6 mg bolus injection at the end of the surgery.

Anesthesia for the elderly outpatient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the number of ambulatory surgery procedures continues to grow in an aging global society, the implementation of evidence-based perioperative care programs for the elderly patients will assume increased importance.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence supports the expanded use of ambulatory surgery for managing elderly patients undergoing elective surgery procedures.

SUMMARY

This review article describes the demographics of ambulatory surgery in the elderly population. This review article describes the effects of aging on the responses of geriatric patients to anesthetic and analgesic drugs used during ambulatory surgery. Important considerations in the preoperative evaluation of elderly outpatients with co-existing diseases, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different anesthetic techniques on a procedural-specific basis, and recommendations regarding the management of common postoperative side-effects (including delirium and cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, dizziness, pain, and gastrointestinal dysfunction) after ambulatory surgery. Finally, we discuss the future challenges related to the continued expansion of ambulatory surgery practice in this growing segment of our surgical population. The role of anesthesiologists as perioperative physicians is of critical importance for optimizing surgical outcomes for elderly patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. Providing high-quality, evidence-based anesthetic and analgesic care for elderly patients undergoing elective operations on an ambulatory basis will assume greater importance in the future.

Update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be one of the most common postsurgical medical problems. An understanding of the pathophysiology of PONV and the pharmacological profiles of agents affecting receptors involved in emesis is necessary to effectively treat PONV.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although serotonin receptor antagonists remain key in the multimodal approach to PONV management, new research developments involving antiemetics, such as neurokinin-1 antagonists, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, and cholinergic antagonists, have yielded valuable efficacy and safety information.

SUMMARY

Proper management of PONV includes an evaluation of risk factors, a strategy for prophylaxis, and rescue antiemetic treatment if necessary. In high-risk patients, combination therapy is recommended in preventing PONV. Knowledge of antiemetic efficacy and safety may facilitate an increase in patient satisfaction, decreased negative health consequences, and reduced medical costs.

Comparative efficacy of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or combined with other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 450 studies and 80,410 patients were included after the screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly fewer patients experienced nausea with any drug relative to placebo, except for ondansetron plus metoclopramide in a NMA including 195 RCTs and 24,230 patients. Significantly fewer patients experienced vomiting with any drug relative to placebo except for palonosetron plus dexamethasone in NMA including 238 RCTs and 12,781 patients. All agents resulted in significantly fewer patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting versus placebo in a NMA including 125 RCTs and 16,667 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Granisetron plus dexamethasone was often the most effective antiemetic, with the number needed to treat ranging from two to nine.

Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients, but these agents may be harmful. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

METHODS

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

RESULTS

Overall, 120 studies and 27,787 patients were included after screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly more patients receiving granisetron plus dexamethasone experienced an arrhythmia relative to placebo (odds ratio (OR) 2.96, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.11-7.94), ondansetron (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.17-8.95), dolasetron (OR 4.37, 95 % CI 1.51-12.62), tropisetron (OR 3.27, 95 % CI 1.02-10.43), and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (OR 5.75, 95 % CI 1.71-19.34) in a NMA including 31 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 6,623 patients of all ages. No statistically significant differences in delirium frequency were observed across all treatment comparisons in a NMA including 18 RCTs and 3,652 patients.

CONCLUSION

Granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia.

Perioperative nonopioid agents for pain control in spinal surgery

PURPOSE

Commonly used nonopioid analgesic agents that are incorporated into multimodal perioperative pain management protocols in spinal surgery are reviewed.

SUMMARY

Spinal procedures constitute perhaps some of most painful surgical interventions, as they often encompass extensive muscle dissection, tissue retraction, and surgical implants, as well as prolonged operative duration. Perioperative nonopioid analgesics frequently used in multimodal protocols include gabapentin, pregabalin, acetaminophen, dexamethasone, ketamine, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). There is evidence to suggest that gabapentin is safe and effective in reducing opioid consumption and pain scores at optimal doses of 600-900 mg orally administered preoperatively. Pregabalin 150-300 mg orally perioperatively has been shown to reduce both pain and narcotic consumption. Most reports concur that a single 1-g i.v. perioperative dose is safe in adults and that this dose has been shown to reduce pain and attenuate narcotic requirements. Dexamethasone's influence on postoperative pain has primarily been investigated for minor spinal procedures, with limited evidence for spinal fusions. Ketamine added to a patient-controlled analgesia regimen appears to be efficacious for 24 hours postoperatively when implemented for microdiskectomy and laminectomy procedures at doses of 1 mg/mL in a 1:1 mixture with morphine. For patients undergoing laminectomy or diskectomy, NSAIDs appear to be safe and effective in reducing pain scores and decreasing opioid consumption.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive analgesic therapy combining nonopioid agents with opioids may reduce narcotic consumption and improve patient satisfaction after spinal surgery. Such therapy should be considered for patients undergoing various spinal procedures in which postoperative pain control has been historically difficult to achieve.

The Effect of Ringer versus Haemaccel Preload on Incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is the most common and unpleasant postoperative complication. There is much controversy on preoperative fluid therapy. The aim of this study was to examine the effect of crystalloid fluid (Ringer solution) versus colloid (Haemaccel solution) on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

In this double-blinded clinical trial, 46 patients were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. The crystalloid group received Ringer solution at a volume of 7 ml/kg and colloid group received 7ml/kg of 3% Modified Gelatin (Haemaccel) as a preoperative intravenous bolus. We used a Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) for assessing the nausea and vomiting occurrence. Data were analyzed using SPSS software ver.13 and χ(2) test and independent t-test.

RESULTS

The result showed that the incidence of PONV was less frequent in both Ringer and Haemaccel groups, but the incidence of vomiting and the intensity of nausea was not significantly different in any time point after anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that preoperative fluid administration decreases the incidence of PONV, and both Crystalloids (Ringer) and colloids (haemaccel) solution were found to be equivalent in prevention of PONV. Therefore using of either Ringer or haemaccel solution is recommended for prevention of PONV.

The effect of combination treatment using palonosetron and dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting versus dexamethasone alone in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of palonosetron combined with dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV compared to dexamethasone alone in women who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) using fentanyl.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, 204 healthy female patients who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia followed by IV-PCA for postoperative pain control were enrolled. Patients were divided into two groups: the PD group (palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 5 mg IV; n = 102) and the D group (dexamethasone 5 mg IV; n = 102). The treatments were given after the induction of anesthesia. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, severity of nausea, and the use of rescue anti-emetics during the first 48 hours after surgery were evaluated.

Results

The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the PD group compared with the D group during the 0-24 hours (43 vs. 59%) and 0-48 hours after surgery (45 vs. 63%) (P < 0.05). The severity of nausea during the 6-24 hours after surgery was significantly less in the PD group compared with the D group (P < 0.05). The incidence of rescue antiemetic used was significantly lower in the PD group than in the D group during the 0-6 hours after surgery (13.1 vs. 24.5%) (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Palonosetron combined with dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV compared to dexamethasone alone in women receiving IV-PCA using fentanyl.

Patients' perspective on day case breast surgery

BACKGROUND

This study assessed the views of patients undergoing breast surgery for breast cancer with a planned overnight stay, asking whether they would be happy to be discharged home on the same day of surgery.

METHODS

A structured questionnaire sent out in the 6 weeks following surgery was used to ascertain the patients' views.

RESULTS

The majority of patients undergoing mastectomy and axillary node clearance preferred an overnight stay, primarily for psychological reasons.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery were more prepared to go home on the day of surgery.

Preoperative Use of 10-mg Metoclopramide and 50-mg Dimenhydrinate in the Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Elective Caesarean Births: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and outcomes of preoperative prophylactic metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate use in elective cesarean births.

METHODS

Participants (n = 84) scheduled for elective cesarean births were randomized equally into placebo (10 cc 0.9 % NaCl), 10-mg metoclopramide or 50-mg dimenhydrinate groups. Oral alimentation was prohibited 8 h before the surgery; however, patients continued drinking water until 4 h before surgery. Placebo and antiemetics were administered 1 h before the anticipated procedure in a 5-ml syringe. In metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate group, an ampoule of the agents was completed to 5 ml by adding 0.9 % NaCl. In the control group 5 ml of 0.9 % NaCl was used. All prophylactic agents were administered intramuscularly. All patients received a general anesthesia. The placebo group (control group) was compared with the metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate groups.

RESULTS

Demographic data including maternal age, height, weight, body mass index, gravidity, parity, miscarriage, induced abortion, the number of offspring, and the medical history did not show significant differences among the three groups. Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and the use of rescue medication ratios were significantly lower in metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate groups compared with the placebo group (p < 0.05); however, the difference between the metoclopramide and dimenhydrinate groups was not significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dimenhydrinate and metoclopramide significantly decrease postoperative nausea, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic medication. Both agents have similar efficacy and may be used as an alternative to each other.

Comparison of Efficacy of Clonidine versus Ondansetron for Prevention of Nausea and Vomiting Post Thyroidectomy: A Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) is the most common symptom in patients post thyroidectomy. Literature search shows conflicting results regarding use of clonidine in PONV prophylaxis. We undertook this randomized controlled double blind trial to compare the efficacy of clonidine with dexamethasone versus ondansetron with dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis in these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective study, 60 consecutive patients posted for thyroidectomy from August 2013 to July 2014, were randomly assigned to two groups, ondansetron (N= 30) (Group A) and clonidine (N= 30) (Group B). Patients received either oral ondansetron 8mg or oral clonidine 150μg as premedication. At the end of surgery, both groups received dexamethasone 8mg intravenously. They were monitored for occurrence of PONV and sore throat for next 24 h. Ramsay sedation scores and total time of analgesia was noted. The primary end point was incidence of PONV in post operative for 24 h. Pearson's chi square test and Students t tests were performed using SPSS for windows version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of patients were comparable. A higher proportion of patients in clonidine group developed PONV than ondansetron (36.7% vs 30%; p=0.03). Clonidine group patients experienced early nausea and vomiting (1-2hrs of postoperative period), compared to ondansetron group patients (6-12 h). Ramsay sedation scores at arrival were higher in clonidine group compared to ondansetron group (2.1 ± 0.3 versus 2.0; p=0.003). Total time of analgesia was higher with use of clonidine than ondansetron (919.5 ± 622 mins versus 642 ± 631 mins; p=0.09). Moderate sore throat was seen in 2 out of 30 patients in both groups. No major adverse events were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron with dexamethasone group was more effective in controlling PONV after thyroidectomy compared to clonidine with dexamethasone group. However, ramsay sedation scores and total time of analgesia were higher with clonidine than ondansetron.

Ondansetron-droperidol combination vs. ondansetron or droperidol monotherapy in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. In this study we investigated comparatively the efficacy of combination therapy with ondansetron plus droperidol versus monotherapy with each agent alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-seven patients who underwent elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study, and assigned to one of the following three groups according to the antiemetic drug given intravenously at the end of the surgery: droperidol 1.25 mg in group D, ondansetron 4 mg in group O, and a combination of droperidol and ondansetron at the doses mentioned above in group D + O. Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and doses of given rescue antiemetics were recorded during the first postoperative day. The total drug cost per patient spent for postoperative nausea and vomiting management (including prophylactic antiemetics plus rescue postoperative antiemetics) was calculated.

RESULTS

Combination therapy significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting at 30 min, 3 h and 6 h after surgery compared with group D (p < 0.01 for all time points) and O (p < 0.01 at 30 min, p < 0.05 at 3 h) and required less rescue antiemetic treatment (p < 0.01). Total antiemetic cost analyses revealed no significant differences among the three groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with ondansetron plus droperidol is more effective than monotherapy in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, without increasing the cost comparatively.

Effect of Intraoperative Dexmedetomidine on Post-Craniotomy Pain

PURPOSE

Pain management for patients who have undergone a craniotomy remains challenging. This study aimed to determine whether intraoperative dexmedetomidine could reduce postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, and possible adverse events in patients after craniotomy.

METHODS

Eighty patients scheduled for elective supratentorial craniotomy under sevoflurane-fentanyl anesthesia were randomly allocated into two equal groups, to receive a continuous dexmedetomidine infusion of 0.5 µg/kg/h or placebo, beginning after induction and continuing until the start of skin closure. Intravenous tramadol (0.5 mg/kg) was administered to achieve an 11-point verbal rating scale (a discrete 0-10 scale) score of 4 or less in the postanesthesia care unit and, thereafter, on the ward. Pain scores, tramadol consumption, sedation scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores, and other adverse events were recorded in the first 24 hours postoperatively.

FINDINGS

Seventy-six patients were included in the analyses. Demographic data, surgical characteristics, and sedation levels were similar between the groups. Dexmedetomidine reduced pain scores (30 minutes, P = 0.041; 2 hours, P = 0.021) and tramadol consumption (0-2 hours, P = 0.043; 0-6 hours, P = 0.006; 0-12 hours, P = 0.023; 0-24 hours, P = 0.040) postoperatively. Dexmedetomidine also reduced PONV scores at 20, 60, 90, 120, and 240 minutes (P = 0.038, 0.022, 0.018, 0.037, 0.016, respectively). The dexmedetomidine group exhibited fewer PONV events that required treatment (P = 0.005).

IMPLICATIONS

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion was effective for reducing pain and analgesic consumption after craniotomy. In addition, dexmedetomidine may help to reduce PONV in patients after craniotomy treated with tramadol postoperatively. Chinese Clinical Trial Register identifier: ChiCTR-TRC-13003598.

Clinical studies of the relationship between the complication of cervicofacial rhytidectomy postoperative nausea and vomiting and different rhytidectomy sites

BACKGROUND

It was demonstrated that there are many complications following cervicofacial rhytidectomy, such as hematoma, edema, seromas, ecchymosis, nerve injury, hypertrophic scarring, contour irregularities, infection, nausea, vomiting, and so on. Accordingly, there is a lot of reports about the treatment of complications following rhytidectomy; nonetheless, we find that there is a trifle of research about the complication of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Thus, this study analyzes the cause of postoperative nausea and vomiting and the relationship between it and different sites.

METHODS

From 2004 to 2008, 108 patients with a mean age of 52 years (range, 30-74 years) underwent cervicofacial rhytidectomy.The approach of operation is local subcutaneous undermining and superficial musculoaponeurotic system double-plication or suture. All data were recorded such as the time when postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred, the duration of the symptom, the frequency of nausea and vomiting, and the antiemetic medicine taken. All cases were grouped according to the different sites of operation. We divided the patients into group A1 and group A2 based on whether forehead rhytidectomy was performed. Meanwhile, we divided the patients into group B1 and group B2 based on whether cervical rhytidectomy was performed. The data of each group were recorded and statistically analyzed.

RESULT

Among 108 patients, postoperative nausea and vomiting occurred in 55 patients. The duration of symptom was about 24 hours. The frequency of vomiting was 1 to 5 times. Besides, nausea and vomiting was characteristic of time limit and the tendency of termination. The ratios of vomiting between groups A1 and A2 were significantly different (P < 0.000 l). The ratios between groups B1 and B2 are of no significant difference (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting is significantly related with forehead rhytidectomy; nonetheless, postoperative nausea and vomiting almost do not occur in the mid-inferior face and cervical rhytidectomy.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting following orthognathic surgery

The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence and risk factors associated with postoperative nausea (PON) and vomiting (POV) after orthognathic surgery. A review of the clinical records of consecutively enrolled subjects (2008-2012) at a single academic institution was conducted between 9/2013 and 3/2014. Data on the occurrence of PON and POV and potential patient-related, intraoperative, and postoperative explanatory factors were extracted from the medical records. Logistic models were used for the presence/absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting separately. Data from 204 subjects were analyzed: 63% were female, 72% Caucasian, and the median age was 19 years. Thirty-three percent had a mandibular osteotomy alone, 27% a maxillary osteotomy alone, and 40% had bimaxillary osteotomies. Sixty-seven percent experienced PON and 27% experienced POV. The most important risk factors for PON in this series were female gender, increased intravenous fluids, and the use of nitrous oxide, and for POV were race, additional procedures, and morphine administration. The incidence of PON and POV following orthognathic surgery in the current cohort of patients, after the introduction of the updated 2007 consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting, has not decreased substantially from that reported in 2003-2004.