Randomized clinical trial of dexamethasone versus placebo in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair

[Inguinal hernia operations-Always outpatient?]

Inguinal hernia operations represent the most frequent operations overall with 300,000 interventions annually in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH region). Despite the announced political willingness and the increasing pressure from the legislator to avoid costly inpatient treatment by carrying out as many outpatient operations as possible, outpatient treatment has so far played a subordinate role in the DACH region. The Boards of the specialist societies the German Hernia Society (DHG), the Surgical Working Group Hernia (CAH of the DHG), the Austrian Hernia Society (ÖHG) and the Swiss Working Group Hernia Surgery (SAHC) make inroads into this problem, describe the initial position and assess the current situation.

Varying convalescence recommendations after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

The most recent international guideline on inguinal hernia management recommends a short convalescence after repair. However, surgeons' recommendations may vary. The objective of this study was to give an overview of the current convalescence recommendations in the literature subdivided on the Lichtenstein and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs.

METHODS

In this systematic review, three databases were searched in August 2021 to identify studies on inguinal hernia repairs with a statement about postoperative convalescence recommendations. The outcome was convalescence recommendations subdivided on daily activities, light work, heavy lifting, and sport.

RESULTS

In total, 91 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria, and 50 and 58 studies reported about convalescence recommendations after Lichtenstein and laparoscopic repairs, respectively. Patients were instructed with a wide range of convalescence recommendations. A total of 34 Lichtenstein studies and 35 laparoscopic studies recommended resumption of daily activities as soon as possible. Following Lichtenstein repairs, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (interquartile range (IQR) 0-0), heavy lifting after 42 days (IQR 14-42), and sport after 7 days (IQR 0-29). Following laparoscopic procedures, the patients were instructed to resume light work after median 0 days (IQR 0-0), heavy lifting after 14 days (IQR 10-28), and sport after 12 days (IQR 7-23).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed a broad spectrum of convalescence recommendations depending on activity level following inguinal hernia repair, which likely reflects a lack of high-quality evidence within this field.

What is the impact of dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing general anaesthesia for elective abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analysis of heterogeneous surgical cohorts demonstrated reduction in postoperative pain with perioperative intravenous dexamethasone, but none have addressed adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of intravenous perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain in adults undergoing elective abdominal surgery under general anaesthesia.

METHODS

This review was prospectively registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020176202). Electronic databases Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Exerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), (CINAHL) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and trial registries were searched to January 28 2021 for randomised controlled trials, comparing dexamethasone to placebo or alternative antiemetic, that reported pain. The primary outcome was pain score, and secondary outcomes were time to first analgesia, opioid requirements and time to post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies (5768 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Pain scores ≤ 4 hour (h) were reduced in patients who received dexamethasone at rest (mean difference (MD), - 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.72 to - 0.35, I2 = 81%) and on movement (MD - 0.42, 95% CI - 0.62 to - 0.22, I2 = 35). In the dexamethasone group, 4-24 h pain scores were less at rest (MD - 0.31, 95% CI - 0.47 to - 0.14, I2 = 96) and on movement (MD - 0.26, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.13, I2 = 29) and pain scores ≥ 24 h were reduced at rest (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.24, I2 = 88) and on movement (MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.65 to - 0.11, I2 = 71). Time to first analgesia (minutes) was increased (MD 22.92, 95% CI 11.09 to 34.75, I2 = 98), opioid requirements (mg oral morphine) decreased (MD - 6.66, 95% CI - 9.38 to - 3.93, I2 = 88) and no difference in time to PACU discharge (MD - 3.82, 95% CI - 10.87 to 3.23, I2 = 59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving dexamethasone had reduced pain scores, postoperative opioid requirements and longer time to first analgesia. Dexamethasone is an effective analgesic adjunct for patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

The efficacy and safety of preoperative glucocorticoids in herniorrhaphy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative pain is the main reason for delayed recovery after herniorrhaphy. Preoperative glucocorticoid administration may improve postoperative recovery. The present study assessed the efficacy of preoperative glucocorticoids in facilitating recovery after herniorrhaphy. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted up to January 2021 were searched in electronic databases and trial registries. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Seven RCTs (744 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Preoperative glucocorticoid administration reduced patients' pain on postoperative day 0 (standard mean difference [SMD] = - 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 1.45 to - 0.01; I² = 94%). However, there was no marked difference in rescue analgesic use (risk ratio [RR] = - 0.06, 95% CI - 0.28 to - 0.16; I² = 0%) or vomiting (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-1.20; I² = 30%) between preoperative glucocorticoid administration and control. The certainty of evidence was moderate because of inconsistencies or imprecision. No serious adverse effects were observed. Preoperative glucocorticoid administration reduced pain in patients following herniorrhaphy without increasing the occurrence of adverse events. Further studies will be required to confirm the efficacy of preoperative glucocorticoids.

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).

Complications of Dentoalveolar Surgery

This article explores how to prevent and manage complications of dentoalveolar surgery. Many complications are avoidable. Surgical skills and knowledge of anatomy play an important role in prevention of complications. Prevention starts with detailed history and physical examination of the patient. Key to perioperative management of patients is risk assessment. Without a proper history and physical examination, the clinician is unable to assess the risk of performing surgery and anesthesia for each patient. Some illnesses and medications increase the risk of complications. The following complications are discussed: alveolar osteitis, displacement, fracture, hemorrhage, infection, nonhealing wound, oroantral communication, swelling, and trismus.

Adverse side effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for pain management, and to facilitate early discharge after ambulatory surgery.Long-term treatment with steroids has many side effects, such as adrenal insufficiency, increased infection risk, hyperglycaemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and development of diabetes mellitus. However, whether a single steroid load during surgery has negative effects during the postoperative period has not yet been studied.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a steroid load of dexamethasone on postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and blood glucose change in adult surgical patients (with planned subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles on 29 January 2018. We searched without language or date restriction two clinical trial registries to identify ongoing studies, and we handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications to identify all eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone versus a control intervention for adult patients undergoing surgery. We required that studies include a follow-up of 30 days for proper assessment of the number of postoperative infections, delayed wound healing, and the glycaemic response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data from relevant studies, and assessed all included studies for bias. We resolved differences by discussion and pooled included studies in a meta-analysis. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and glycaemic response within 24 hours. We created a funnel plot for the primary outcome postoperative (wound or systemic) infection. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the meta-analysis 37 studies that included adults undergoing a large variety of surgical procedures (i.e. abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery). We excluded one previously included study, as this study was recently retracted. Age range of participants was 18 to 80 years. There is probably little or no difference in the risk of postoperative (wound or systemic) infection with dexamethasone compared with no treatment, placebo, or active control (ramosetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron) (Peto OR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27; 4603 participants, 26 studies; I² = 32%; moderate-quality evidence). The effects of dexamethasone on delayed wound healing are unclear because the wide confidence interval includes both meaningful benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.43; 1072 participants, eight studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Dexamethasone may produce a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 hours after surgery (MD 13 mg/dL, 95% CI 6 to 21; 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence). We identified two studies reporting on glycaemic response after dexamethasone in participants with diabetes within 24 hours after surgery (MD 32 mg/dL, 95% CI 15 to 49; 74 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of dexamethasone probably does not increase the risk for postoperative infection. It is uncertain whether dexamethasone has an effect on delayed wound healing in the general surgical population owing to imprecision in trial results. Participants with increased risk for delayed wound healing (e.g. participants with diabetes, those taking immunosuppressive drugs) were not included in the randomized studies reporting on delayed wound healing included in this meta-analysis; therefore our findings should be extrapolated to the clinical setting with caution. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that dexamethasone induces a mild increase in glucose. For patients with diabetes, very limited evidence suggests a more pronounced increase in glucose. Whether this influences wound healing in a clinically relevant way remains to be established. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification and three that are ongoing may alter the conclusions of this review.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Effect of the Dexamethasone-Ondansetron Combination Versus Dexamethasone-Aprepitant Combination to Prevent Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Objective

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common problem associated with general anaesthesia. The incidence can be as high as 80% in high-risk patients. Our primary objective was to compare the efficacy of the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron and dexamethasone-aprepitant in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

Seventy 18 to 60 years old patients scheduled for laparoscopic surgery were included in the study. Sixty-seven patients completed the study. Patients in the dexamethasone-aprepitant group (group DA, n=35) received 40 mg of aprepitant orally 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 2 mL saline intravenously (iv) within the last 30 minutes of surgery; patients in the dexamethasone-ondansetron group (group DO, n=35) received oral placebo identical to aprepitant 1-2 hours before the induction of anaesthesia and 4 mg ondansetron iv within the last 30 minutes of surgery. All patients received 8 mg dexamethasone iv after the induction of anaesthesia. The primary outcome was a complete response (no postoperative nausea, retching and vomiting and no need for rescue antiemetic); the secondary outcomes were the incidence of nausea, retching, vomiting, the need of rescue antiemetic and opioid consumption within 24 hours after surgery.

Results

A complete response was not significantly different between the groups (group DO: 67%, DA: 69%) at 24 hours (p=0.93). The incidence of PONV and postoperative opioid consumption was similar between the groups.

Conclusion

The study was designed to evaluate whether the combination of dexamethasone-aprepitant is better than the combination of dexamethasone-ondansetron regarding the complete response for PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. The results however showed that dexamethasone-aprepitant has not improved the complete response for PONV compared to dexamethasone-ondansetron.

Adverse side effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for pain management, and to facilitate early discharge after ambulatory surgery.Long-term treatment with steroids has many side effects, such as adrenal insufficiency, increased infection risk, hyperglycaemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and development of diabetes mellitus. However, whether a single steroid load during surgery has negative effects during the postoperative period has not yet been studied.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a steroid load of dexamethasone on postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and blood glucose change in adult surgical patients (with planned subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles on 29 January 2018. We searched without language or date restriction two clinical trial registries to identify ongoing studies, and we handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications to identify all eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone versus a control intervention for adult patients undergoing surgery. We required that studies include a follow-up of 30 days for proper assessment of the number of postoperative infections, delayed wound healing, and the glycaemic response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data from relevant studies, and assessed all included studies for bias. We resolved differences by discussion and pooled included studies in a meta-analysis. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and glycaemic response within 24 hours. We created a funnel plot for the primary outcome postoperative (wound or systemic) infection. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the meta-analysis 38 studies that included adults undergoing a large variety of surgical procedures (i.e. abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery). Age range of participants was 18 to 80 years. There is probably little or no difference in the risk of postoperative (wound or systemic) infection with dexamethasone compared with no treatment, placebo, or active control (ramosetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron) (Peto OR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27; 4931 participants, 27 studies; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). The effects of dexamethasone on delayed wound healing are unclear because the wide confidence interval includes both meaningful benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.43; 1072 participants, eight studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Dexamethasone may produce a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 hours after surgery (MD 13 mg/dL, 95% CI 6 to 21; 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence). We identified two studies reporting on glycaemic response after dexamethasone in participants with diabetes within 24 hours after surgery (MD 32 mg/dL, 95% CI 15 to 49; 74 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of dexamethasone probably does not increase the risk for postoperative infection. It is uncertain whether dexamethasone has an effect on delayed wound healing in the general surgical population owing to imprecision in trial results. Participants with increased risk for delayed wound healing (e.g. participants with diabetes, those taking immunosuppressive drugs) were not included in the randomized studies reporting on delayed wound healing included in this meta-analysis; therefore our findings should be extrapolated to the clinical setting with caution. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that dexamethasone induces a mild increase in glucose. For patients with diabetes, very limited evidence suggests a more pronounced increase in glucose. Whether this influences wound healing in a clinically relevant way remains to be established. Once assessed, the three studies awaiting classification and two that are ongoing may alter the conclusions of this review.

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 .

Randomized clinical trial of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopy for suspected appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the effects of preoperative dexamethasone in acute surgical patients. This study examined the effects of 8 mg dexamethasone administered intravenously 30 min before surgery for suspected acute appendicitis.

METHODS

A multicentre, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at two university hospitals in Denmark. Adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery for suspected appendicitis were eligible for inclusion. Participants, healthcare staff and investigators were blinded until all data analysis had been done. The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first postoperative day. Secondary outcomes were pain, fatigue, sleep, opioid consumption, use of antiemetics, quality of recovery and duration of convalescence. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled; 57 patients in the dexamethasone group and 59 in the placebo group were eligible for primary analysis. In the dexamethasone group, 47 (95 per cent c.i. 35 to 60) per cent of patients experienced PONV compared with 63 (50 to 74) per cent) in the placebo group. The absolute risk reduction in PONV was 15 (-3 to 33) per cent in favour of the dexamethasone group (P = 0·098). Patients in the dexamethasone group had less pain at rest (difference in score on visual analogue scale (VAS) 9 (95 per cent c.i. 1 to 17) mm; P = 0·024), were less fatigued (difference in VAS score 7 (0 to 14) mm; P = 0·038), used fewer opioids (absolute risk reduction 17 (2 to 33) per cent; P = 0·033) and had better quality of recovery (difference in QoR-15 score 13 (4 to 22); P = 0·006) during the first postoperative day. There was no difference in postoperative complications (P = 0·595).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative dexamethasone did not reduce PONV by the target level of 50 per cent. Registration number: NCT02415335 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

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.

Convalescence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Duration of convalescence after inguinal hernia repair is of major socio-economic interest and an often reported outcome measure. The primary aim was to perform a critical analysis of duration of convalescence from work and activity and secondary to identify risk factors for unexpected prolonged convalescence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane database were searched for trials reporting convalescence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the period from January 1990 to January 2016. Furthermore, snowball search was performed in reference lists of identified articles. Randomized controlled trials and prospective comparative or non-comparative trials of high quality were included. Trials with ≥100 patients, >18 years of age and manuscripts in English were included. Scoring systems were used for assessment of quality.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 1039 papers. Thirty-four trials were included in the final review including 14,273 patients. There was overall a large variation in duration of convalescence. Trials using non-restrictive recommendations of 1-2 days or "as soon as possible to return to all activities" reported overall a shorter duration of convalescence compared with trials not using recommendations for convalescence. Strenuous physical activity at work, strenuous leisure activity and patients with expectations of a prolonged period of convalescence may be risk factors for prolonged convalescence extending more than a few days after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients should be recommended a duration of 1-2 days of convalescence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair. Short and non-restrictive recommendations may reduce duration of convalescence without increasing risk of pain, complications or recurrence rate.

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.