Postoperative nausea and vomiting in facial fracture patients: A Randomized and controlled trial on the effect of dexamethasone

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in orthognathic surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequently reported adverse event following orthognathic surgery. The aim of this work is to conduct a systematic review of the literature on the subject, and to discuss the role of maxillofacial surgeons and the steps that can be taken to prevent or control PONV in orthognathic surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines, using the search strategy: (orthognathic AND (nausea OR vomiting)). The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Dimensions, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases, without any language restrictions. RevMan 5.4 was used to create a risk of bias graph and a forest plot.

RESULTS

The included articles were classified as having a low risk of bias, despite the limited literature on the subject. Various measures have been reported to be beneficial in preventing or managing PONV, such as the use of dexamethasone, antiemetic drugs, gastric aspiration, and anesthetic blocks. Effective bleeding control and faster surgeries can also be helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Throat packs have not been found to be effective in preventing PONV. Although no definitive protocol has been established in the literature, the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol could be a useful approach. Overall, a multimodal approach may be taken to prevent PONV, and further research is needed to establish definitive protocols.

Efficacy of gastric aspiration to reduce postoperative vomiting after orthognathic surgery: double-blind randomised clinical trial

Orthognathic surgery is a treatment modality indicated to correct dentofacial deformities. Postoperative vomiting can be associated with multifactorial origin mainly correlated to patient-related symptoms, anaesthetic and surgical factors. Swallowed blood has been related to one of those multifactorial vomiting causes. This present study was to compare the efficacy of gastric aspiration after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. A double blind randomised clinical trial was carried out and patients were divided in two groups (n = 44/39 respectively). There was statistically significant difference between the control and study groups in the overall incidence of vomiting (p = 0.031) A stratified analysis by sex between both groups was performed demonstrating a four-fold eduction in the odds for vomiting events independent of patient gender (OR = 0.24; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.72). Gastric aspiration after orthognathic surgery can reduce the effects of postoperative vomiting decreasing inpatient period and, consequently, hospitalisation costs.

Fifteen-Year Review of the American Board of Plastic Surgery Maintenance of Certification Tracer Data: Clinical Practice Patterns and Evidence-Based Medicine in Zygomatico-Orbital Fractures

BACKGROUND

From 2005 to 2020, the American Board of Plastic Surgery collected data on 20 common plastic surgery operations as part of the Maintenance of Certification process. These data allow the authors to examine national trends in zygomatico-orbital fracture repair over a 15-year period.

METHODS

Tracer data for zygomatico-orbital fracture repair were reviewed in cohorts from 2005 to 2013 and 2014 to 2020. Results were categorized based on their presence in evidence-based medicine articles published during this period. Differences between years were assessed using the t test or chi-square test as appropriate.

RESULTS

Four hundred thirty patients were included as of March of 2020. Average age was 37 years (range, 6 to 85 years), and 76 percent were male. Operations took place on average 10 days from injury. There were significant decreases in the use of subciliary (31.9 percent versus 10.0 percent; p < 0.001), gingival buccal (84.3 percent versus 56.4 percent; p < 0.001), and lateral brow (45.2 percent versus 22.3 percent; p < 0.001) incisions, with an increase in lower lid external incisions (15.2 percent versus 30.9 percent; p < 0.001); 2.7 percent of patients had a complication requiring readmission and 4.5 percent required reoperation. The incidence of postoperative diplopia was 7.7 percent, and the infection rate was 1.7 percent.

CONCLUSIONS

This article reviews the American Board of Plastic Surgery tracer data for zygomatico-orbital fracture repair. The Maintenance of Certification tracer data provide a national database with longer follow-up and more specific information than comparable databases. Analysis of these data over time enables the authors to describe practice trends and gives surgeons the opportunity to compare their outcomes to national norms.

Do the Benefits of Systemic Corticosteroids Outweigh Adverse Effects During Maxillofacial Trauma Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Perioperative systemic corticosteroids are widely used in maxillofacial trauma surgery to prevent postoperative complications, but potentially perceived benefits are speculative rather than evidence-based. The purpose of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of perioperative systemic corticosteroids on clinically significant outcomes in patients undergoing maxillofacial trauma surgery.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Clinical trial registry, and grey literature as well as references of included trials. Our primary outcomes were facial edema and pain after the surgery. Our secondary outcomes were postoperative nausea and vomiting, neurosensory disturbance, functional recovery, wound infections, and other adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 94 trials retrieved, 13 were included (n = 652). Perioperative steroid use was associated with reduced pain and facial edema. We observed a decrease in postoperative nausea and vomiting with the use of systemic corticosteroids (n = 184, OR = 0.53, [0.28, 1.02], I² = 0%). Four trials reported infections and impaired wound healing associated with steroids (n = 160. OR = 3.37, [1.43. 7.94], I² = 2%). The 13 trials had an unclear risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic corticosteroids reduced facial edema and postoperative pain, but impaired wound healing was also reported. The use of systemic steroids in maxillofacial trauma surgery is thus supported only by weak evidence and further research is advocated.

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).

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.

Behavior of C-reactive protein in association with surgery of facial fracture and the influence of dexamethasone

PURPOSE

To clarify pre- and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with facial fractures and to investigate the influence of perioperatively administered dexamethasone on postoperative CRP levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Facial fracture patients were randomized to receive perioperatively a total dose of 30 mg of dexamethasone (Oradexon®), whereas patients in the control group received no glucocorticoid. The analysis included patients who had CRP measured pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 73 adult patients with facial fractures were included in the final analysis. Mean CRP level was elevated preoperatively and the level increased further after surgery. However, postoperative CRP rise was significantly impeded by dexamethasone (p < 0.001), regardless of gender, age, treatment delay, site of fracture, surgical approach, and duration of surgery. CRP rise halved on the 1st postoperative day when dexamethasone was used. In addition, dexamethasone resulted in a CRP decrease on the 2nd postoperative day, whereas the CRP rise continued in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

CRP rise is a normal body response after facial fracture and surgery that can be markedly reduced with dexamethasone. CRP changes should be considered with caution if perioperative dexamethasone is used.