How does dexamethasone influence surgical outcome after laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication? A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Systematic review of the perioperative classification, diagnosis, description and repair of hiatus hernias in randomized controlled trials

Hiatus hernias (HH) are a common cause of symptoms and complications, with considerable variation in anatomy, function, diagnosis and treatment. We undertook the first systematic review to appraise how HH are diagnosed and classified in the literature, using randomized controlled trials as a sample. A search was performed in July 2021of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and 2832 articles were identified and 64 were included. Median Jadad score was 2. Studies demonstrated considerable variation in diagnosis, classification and minimum surgical steps. The commonest classifications before surgery were axial length and the Type I-IV classification, variably assessed by endoscopy and contrast swallow. Intra-operatively, the commonest classification was type I-IV. A minority used more than one classification, or alternatives such as defect size and Hill classification. Most studies reported minimum steps, but these varied. Only a minority reported criteria for diagnosing recurrence. Using randomized controlled trials to appraise the highest quality evidence in the literature, we found considerable variation and inconsistency in the way HH are diagnosed and classified. This lack of a 'common language' has significant impacts for the generalizability of evidence, study synthesis and design. We propose the development of an internationally accepted classification. We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

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).

Antinausea Protocol Reduces Hospital Length of Stay for Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication

OBJECTIVE

The perioperative course of patients undergoing laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) was reviewed to determine whether the use of a new treatment protocol consisting of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) plus triple antiemetic therapy was associated with shorter hospital length of stay (HLOS).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Single academic center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 448 patients. Fifty-four patients undergoing LNF who received TIVA were compared with 394 who received standard inhalational anesthesia (non-TIVA) between January 2010 and June 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients who received TIVA were compared with those who received non-TIVA.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

In multivariate analysis, TIVA was significantly associated with reduced HLOS (odds ratio 2.91, 95% confidence interval 1.47-5.78) and a 7.8% reduction in cost of care (p < 0.01). Female sex, length of surgery, and older age all were negatively associated with length of stay. The association between the use of TIVA and reduced HLOS and institutional cost was compared using univariate and multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of TIVA in patients undergoing uncomplicated LNF shortens HLOS and is associated with reduced cost of care. This study illustrates that communication among surgeons and anesthesiologists results in improved patient care.

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.

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.

A Narrative Review of the Evidence on the Efficacy of Dexamethasone on Postoperative Analgesic Consumption

OBJECTIVES

The effect of dexamethasone on analgesic consumption has not been adequately studied. The aim of this review was to investigate recent literature regarding the possible effect of dexamethasone on postoperative analgesic consumption.

METHODS

Critical review of randomized trials and prospective consecutive studies investigating the postoperative analgesic effect of dexamethasone was performed. Only studies published during 2006 to 2015 were included.

RESULTS

Forty-one studies met the inclusion criteria; 33 in adults and 8 in children (9 in general surgery, 8 in gynecologic/breast surgery, 8 in orthopedic/spinal surgery, 8 in head/neck surgery, 7 in children's tonsillectomy, and 1 in children's orchiopexy). Literature review demonstrated that dexamethasone can decrease analgesic requirements in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomies, laparoscopic gynecologic and breast surgery; whereas there is no consensus regarding orthopedic procedures, with positive evidence mostly regarding spinal surgeries. The efficacy of dexamethasone during head and neck surgery is not conclusive; however, its use before thyroid surgery may be beneficial. In children a beneficial impact of dexamethasone administration was revealed on posttonsillectomy reduction of analgesic needs. Studies on other kinds of operations in children are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone administered at a dose of 8 mg before surgical incision may be beneficial in laparoscopic cholecystectomies, thyroid, laparoscopic gynecologic and breast surgery, and tonsillectomies in children. Dexamethasone's potential impact on reducing postoperative analgesic requirements should be investigated in more detail in a systematic manner, to support its use in other kinds of operations.

Safety of Perioperative Glucocorticoids in Elective Noncardiac Surgery

Background

Glucocorticoids are increasingly used perioperatively, principally to prevent nausea and vomiting. Safety concerns focus on the potential for hyperglycemia and increased infection. The authors hypothesized that glucocorticoids predispose to such adverse outcomes in a dose-dependent fashion after elective noncardiac surgery.

Methods

The authors conducted a systematic literature search of the major medical databases from their inception to April 2016. Randomized glucocorticoid trials in adults specifically reporting on a safety outcome were included and meta-analyzed with Peto odds ratio method or the quality effects model. Subanalyses were performed according to a dexamethasone dose equivalent of low (less than 8 mg), medium (8 to 16 mg), and high (more than 16 mg). The primary endpoints of any wound infection and peak perioperative glucose concentrations were subject to meta-regression.

Results

Fifty-six trials from 18 countries were identified, predominantly assessing dexamethasone. Glucocorticoids did not impact on any wound infection (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2) but did result in a clinically unimportant increase in peak perioperative glucose concentration (weighted mean difference, 20.0 mg/dl; CI, 11.4 to 28.6; P &lt; 0.001 or 1.1 mM; CI, 0.6 to 1.6). Glucocorticoids reduced peak postoperative C-reactive protein concentrations (weighted mean difference, −22.1 mg/l; CI, −31.7 to −12.5; P &lt; 0.001), but other adverse outcomes and length of stay were unchanged. No dose–effect relationships were apparent.

Conclusions

The evidence at present does not highlight any safety concerns with respect to the use of perioperative glucocorticoids and subsequent infection, hyperglycemia, or other adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, collated trials lacked sufficient surveillance and power to detect clinically important differences in complications such as wound infection.

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).

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

Background

The effect of dexamethasone on recovery and length of convalescence has not been evaluated in patients after laparoscopic groin hernia repair. It was hypothesized that preoperative intravenous dexamethasone would reduce postoperative pain.

Methods

Men undergoing transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair were randomized to receive either a single intravenous dose of 8 mg dexamethasone or placebo (saline) 30–60 min before operation in a randomized double-blind trial. Patients in the two groups received similar standardized anaesthesia and analgesic regimens. The primary outcome measure was pain during coughing on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes were postoperative discomfort, fatigue and length of convalescence. Pain scores, discomfort and fatigue were recorded before surgery and daily on postoperative days 0–3 in a standard manner using visual analogue, verbal rating and numerical rating scales. The use of analgesics and antiemetics on the day of operation was recorded. The duration of time away from work and leisure activities was registered.

Results

The study enrolled 80 patients. No significant differences were found between the groups regarding postoperative pain, need for analgesia, discomfort, fatigue, nausea, vomiting or length of convalescence. Patients who received placebo used significantly more antiemetics in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) than patients in the dexamethasone group (P = 0·026).

Conclusion

A single preoperative dose of 8 mg dexamethasone before laparoscopic groin hernia repair had no clinical effect on early postoperative pain, discomfort or fatigue after TAPP inguinal hernia repair, but resulted in a significantly lower use of antiemetics in the PACU. Registration number: NCT01170780 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Reflux and sex: what drives testing, what drives treatment?

Gastroesophageal reflux (GER) affects ∼10-20% of American adults. Although symptoms are equally common in men and women, we hypothesized that sex influences diagnostic and therapeutic approaches in patients with GER. PubMed database between 1997 and October 2011 was searched for English language studies describing symptoms, consultative visits, endoscopic findings, use and results of ambulatory pH study, and surgical therapy for GER. Using data from Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, we determined the sex distribution for admissions and reflux surgery between 1997 and 2008. Studies on symptoms or consultative visits did not show sex-specific differences. Even though women are less likely to have esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, endoscopic studies enrolled as many women as men, and women were more likely to undergo ambulatory pH studies with a female predominance in studies from the US. Surgical GER treatment is more commonly performed in men. However, studies from the US showed an equal sex distribution, with Nationwide Inpatient Sample data demonstrating an increase in women who accounted for 63% of the annual fundoplications in 2008. Despite less common or severe mucosal disease, women are more likely to undergo invasive diagnostic testing. In the US, women are also more likely to undergo antireflux surgery. These results suggest that healthcare-seeking behavior and socioeconomic factors rather than the biology of disease influence the clinical approaches to reflux disease.