Tropisetron alleviate early post-operative pain after gynecological laparoscopy in sevoflurane based general anaesthesia: a randomized, parallel-group, factorial study

Ultrasound-guided Superficial Cervical Plexus Blocks for Persistent Pain after Suboccipital Craniotomies: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of superficial cervical plexus blocks for reducing persistent pain after craniotomies remains unclear. The authors tested the primary hypothesis that preoperative ultrasound-guided superficial cervical plexus blocks reduce persistent pain 3 months after suboccipital craniotomies.

METHODS

A single-center randomized and blinded parallel-group trial was conducted. Eligible patients having suboccipital craniotomies were randomly allocated to superficial cervical plexus blocks with 10 ml 0.5% ropivacaine or a comparable amount of normal saline. Injections were into the superficial layer of prevertebral fascia. The primary outcome was the incidence of persistent pain three months after surgery.

RESULTS

From November 2021 to August 2023, a total of 292 qualifying patients were randomly allocated to blocks with ropivacaine (n = 146) or saline (n = 146). The average ± SD age of participating patients was 45 ± 12 yr, and the duration of surgery was 4.2 ± 1.3 h. Persistent pain 3 months after surgery was reported by 48 (34%) of patients randomized to ropivacaine versus 73 (51%) in those assigned to saline (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.88; P = 0.003) in the per-protocol population, and by 53 (36%) of patients randomized to ropivacaine versus 77 (53%) in those assigned to saline (relative risk, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.90; P = 0.005) in the intention-to-treat population.

CONCLUSIONS

Superficial cervical plexus blocks reduce the incidence of persistent incisional pain by about a third in patients recovering from suboccipital craniotomies.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Effect of Prophylactic Tropisetron on Post-Operative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with trial sequential analysis (TSA) aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the efficacy of the prophylactic administration of tropisetron in the prevention of the incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024372692). RCTs comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of tropisetron with that of a placebo, other anti-emetic agents, or a combination of anti-emetic injections were retrieved from the databases of Ovid-MEDLINE, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar. The frequency of rescue anti-emetic use (RA) and the incidence of PON, POV, and PONV (relative risk [RR]: 0.718; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.652-0.790; I2 = 0.0, RR: 0.587; 95% CI 0.455-0.757; I2 = 63.32, RR: 0.655; 95% CI 0.532-0.806; I2 = 49.09, and RR: 0.622; 95% CI 0.552-0.700; I2 = 0.00, respectively) in the tropisetron group were lower than those in the control group; however, the incidence of complete response (CR) was higher in the tropisetron group (RR: 1.517;95% CI 1.222-1.885; I2 = 44.14). TSA showed the cumulative Z-curve exceeded both the conventional test and trial sequential monitoring boundaries for RA, PON, POV, and PONV between the tropisetron group and the control group. Thus, the prophylactic administration of tropisetron exhibited superior efficacy in the prevention of PON, POV, and PONV. Furthermore, a lower incidence of RA and a higher incidence of CR were observed with its use.

Evaluation of the effect of intraoperative tropisetron on postoperative rebound pain after brachial plexus block: a randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Postoperative rebound pain after peripheral nerve block increases patient suffering and delays recovery after surgery.

Objectives

We tested whether the 5HT-3 receptor antagonist and α7nAChR agonist tropisetron could prevent postoperative rebound pain.

Methods

A total of 115 patients were randomized to receive 5-mg/5-mL tropisetron or the same volume of normal saline. Pain intensity was measured with the numerical rating scale of pain (NRS). Rebound pain was defined as a change from mild pain (NRS ≤ 3) measured in the postanesthesia care unit to severe pain (NRS ≥ 7) within 24 hours after peripheral nerve blockade. Logistic regression was used to identify relevant factors associated with postoperative rebound pain.

Results

Tropisetron did not affect the NRS score or the incidence of rebound pain after peripheral nerve block. Logistic regression revealed that preoperative pain, bone surgery, and length of incision were risk factors for postoperative rebound pain, and patient-controlled analgesia was protective against postoperative rebound pain.

Conclusion

Tropisetron does not affect the incidence of rebound pain after peripheral nerve block. Patients at high risk of postoperative rebound pain should be identified for appropriate management. Registration site: www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2300069994).

Intravenous versus inhalational maintenance of anesthesia for quality of recovery in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Intravenous and inhalational agents are commonly used in general anesthesia. However, it is still controversial which technique is superior for the quality of postoperative recovery. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing impact of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational maintenance of anesthesia on the quality of recovery in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Methods

We systematically searched EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no language or publication status restriction. Two authors independently performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes were expressed as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on a random-effect model. We performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) for total QoR-40 scores and calculated the required information size (RIS) to correct the increased type I error.

Results

A total of 156 records were identified, and 9 RCTs consisting of 922 patients were reviewed and included in the meta-analysis. It revealed a significant increase in total QoR-40 score on the day of surgery with TIVA (MD, 5.91 points; 95% CI, 2.14 to 9.68 points; P = 0.002; I² = 0.0%). The main improvement was in four dimensions, including “physical comfort”, “emotional status”, “psychological support” and “physical independence”. There was no significant difference between groups in total QoR-40 score (P = 0.120) or scores of each dimension on POD1. The TSA showed that the estimated required information size for total QoR-40 scores was not surpassed by recovered evidence in our meta-analysis. And the adjusted Z-curves did not cross the conventional boundary and the TSA monitoring boundary.

Conclusion

Low-certainty evidence suggests that propofol-based TIVA may improve the QoR-40 score on the day of surgery. But more evidence is needed for a firm conclusion and clinical significance.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects.

OBJECTIVES

• To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK₁ receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reduce vomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT₃ receptor antagonists, D₂ receptor antagonists, NK₁ receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK₁ receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Protective effects of tropisetron on cerulein-induced acute pancreatitis in mice

Acute pancreatitis (AP) causes morbidity and mortality. The aim of the present study was to investigate the protective effect of tropisetron against AP induced by cerulein. Cerulein (50μg/kg, 5 doses) was used to induce AP in mice. Six hours after final cerulein injection, animals were decapitated. Hepatic/pancreatic enzymes in the serum, pancreatic content of malondialdehyde (MDA), pro-inflammatory cytokines and myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity were measured. Tropisetron significantly attenuated pancreatic injury markers and decreased the amount of elevated serum amylase, lipase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), MPO activities and pro-inflammatory cytokines levels caused by AP in mice. Tropisetron didn't affect the pancreatic levels of MDA. Our results suggest that tropisetron could attenuate cerulein-induced AP by combating inflammatory signaling. Further clinical studies are needed to confirm its efficacy in patients with AP.

Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.

5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative shivering: a meta-analysis

Objective

We evaluated the efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative shivering.

Methods

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Knowledge to find randomized controlled trials (RCT) of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for the prevention of postoperative shivering. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan 5.2.

Results

Ultimately, 14 RCTs that included 980 patients were included in the analysis. We found that: 1) the incidence of shivering was significantly lower in 5-HT3 groups than placebo groups (relative risk, [RR] = 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40 – 0.58); 2) there was no significant difference in the incidence of shivering between 5-HT3 groups and meperidine groups (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.60 – 1.34).

Conclusion

5-HT3 receptor antagonists appear to prevent postoperative shivering, with a broadly comparable efficacy to meperidine.

Laparoscopic surgery: a narrative review of pharmacotherapy in pain management

Laparoscopic surgery is widespread, and an increasing number of surgeries are performed laparoscopically. Early pain after laparoscopy can be similar or even more severe than that after open surgery. Thus, proactive pain management should be provided. Pain after laparoscopic surgery is derived from multiple origins; therefore, a single agent is seldom sufficient. Pain is most effectively controlled by a multimodal, preventive analgesia approach, such as combining opioids with non-opioid analgesics and local anaesthetics. Wound and port site local anaesthetic injections decrease abdominal wall pain by 1-1.5 units on a 0-10 pain scale. Inflammatory pain and shoulder pain can be controlled by NSAIDs or corticosteroids. In some patient groups, adjuvant drugs, ketamine and α2-adrenergic agonists can be helpful, but evidence on gabapentinoids is conflicting. In the present review, the types of pain that need to be taken into account while planning pain management protocols and the wide range of analgesic options that have been assessed in laparoscopic surgery are critically assessed. Recommendations to the clinician will be made regarding how to manage acute pain and how to prevent persistent postoperative pain. It is important to identify patients at the highest risk for severe and prolonged post-operative pain, and to have a proactive strategy in place for these individuals.