Betamethasone in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following breast surgery

High-Dose Compound Betamethasone Used in Local Infiltration Analgesia Does Not Increase Reinfection Rates Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment

BACKGROUND

Cocktails containing glucocorticoids for local infiltration analgesia (LIA) are highly advocated and effective in managing pain in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, it remains ambiguous whether this protocol maintains its safety and efficacy in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a devastating complication of TJA.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 299 single-stage revision cases for PJI spanning the years 2010 to 2021. Of these, 127 received LIAs containing high-dose compound betamethasone (CB) were termed the CB group, and the other 172 were termed the non-CB group. The rates of re-infection and other postoperative complications, along with postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and opioid consumption were compared.

RESULTS

During minimum 2-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the re-infection rate between the non-CB and CB groups (9.3 versus 8.7%; P = 0.85), consistent within the subsets of hip (8.4 versus 4.5%; P = 0.51) and knee (10.4 versus 13.3%; P = 0.60) PJIs individually. The administration of high-dose CB was neither an independent risk factor for reinfection (P > 0.05; 95% CI [confidence interval] including 1) nor was it associated with the occurrence of reinfection (P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly lower in the CB group (P < 0.05). In the first 48-hour postoperative period, the CB group exhibited lower mean scores in both resting and movement VAS evaluations (P < 0.05). For knees, the movement VAS scores of the CB group remained lower even at 72 hours post-surgery (P < 0.001). Furthermore, within the first 72 hours post-surgery, the CB group required less additional opioid analgesics than the non-CB group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A LIA with a high-dose CB reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and the incidence of PONV following a single-stage revision without affecting reinfection and other complication rates.

A study on the effect of clinical intervention of evidence-based nursing measures on complications in patients after breast-conserving surgery

BACKGROUND

Breast-conserving surgery is an important treatment for breast cancer, which not only eradicates the disease, but also protects the integrity of the breast, however, postoperative nausea and vomiting often bother patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the effects of evidence-based nursing practices on nausea and vomiting in patients after breast-conserving surgery, with the aim of providing new perspectives for clinical nursing practice.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery from January 2023 to December 2023 in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center were enrolled. The patients were divided into an intervention group (evidence-based nursing group) and a control group (conventional nursing group) using the random number table method, both groups comprised 80 patients. The control group used conventional nursing methods, and the intervention group added evidence-based nursing intervention on this basis. Comparative analysis focused on the incidence of nausea and vomiting, quality of life metrics, and postoperative satisfaction.

RESULTS

In the intervention group, notably lower incidence rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were observed compared to the control group within both the 0-24 hour and 24-48-hour postoperative periods (P< 0.05). Furthermore, the intervention group exhibited significantly higher scores across all five dimensions as well as the overall score of the FACT-B scale in comparison to the control group (P< 0.05), accompanied by heightened satisfaction with the nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the positive clinical intervention effects of evidence-based nursing measures and emphasized their importance in improving postoperative nausea and vomiting and quality of life. Future studies are expected to incorporate evidence-based nursing practices into nursing care to improve patient recovery and overall quality of care.

A Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Update: Current information on New Drugs, Old Drugs, Rescue/Treatment, Combination Therapies and Nontraditional Modalities

This article's objective is to present the latest evidence and information on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV continues to affect 30% of the surgical population causing patient dissatisfaction, extending length of stay, and increasing overall costs. This review includes the introduction of 2 new intravenous formulations of antiemetics (amisulpride, aprepitant), updates on nontraditional therapies, suggestions for combination prophylaxis, emerging data on rescue treatment, and considerations for special populations and settings. Both of the new antiemetics provide promising options for pharmacologic interventions for PONV with favorable safety profiles.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Female Patients Undergoing Breast and Gynecological Surgery: A Narrative Review of Risk Factors and Prophylaxis

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been widely studied as a multifactorial entity, being of female gender the strongest risk factor. Reported PONV incidence in female surgical populations is extremely variable among randomized clinical trials. In this narrative review, we intend to summarize the incidence, independent predictors, pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for PONV reported in recently published clinical trials carried out in female patients undergoing breast and gynecologic surgery, as well as the implications of the anesthetic agents on the incidence of PONV. A literature search of manuscripts describing PONV management in female surgical populations (breast surgery and gynecologic surgery) was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases. Postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence were highly variable in patients receiving placebo or no prophylaxis among RCTs whereas consistent results were observed in patients receiving 1 or 2 prophylactic interventions for PONV. Despite efforts made, a considerable number of female patients still experienced significant PONV. It is critical for the anesthesia provider to be aware that the coexistence of independent risk factors such as the level of sex hormones (pre- and postmenopausal), preoperative anxiety or depression, pharmacogenomic pleomorphisms, and ethnicity further enhances the probability of experiencing PONV in female patients. Future RCTs should closely assess the overall risk of PONV in female patients considering patient- and surgery-related factors, and the level of compliance with current guidelines for prevention and management of PONV.

Perioperative Breast Analgesia: a Systematic Review of the Evidence for Perioperative Analgesic Medications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Breast surgery is common and may result in significant acute as well as chronic pain. A wide range of pharmacologic interventions is available including opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, anticonvulsants, and other non-opioids with analgesic properties. We present a review of the evidence for these pharmacologic interventions. A literature search of the MEDLINE database was performed via PubMed with combined terms related to breast surgery, anesthesia, and analgesia. Articles were limited to randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, adult patients undergoing elective surgery on the breast (not including biopsy), and pharmacologic interventions only. Article titles and abstracts were screened, and risk of bias assessments were performed.

RECENT FINDINGS

The search strategy initially captured 7254 articles of which 60 articles met the full inclusion criteria. Articles were organized according to intervention: 6 opioid agonists, 14 NSAIDs and acetaminophen, 4 alpha-2 agonists, 7 NMDA receptor antagonists, 6 local anesthetics, 7 steroids, 15 anticonvulsants (one of which also discussed an NMDA antagonist), 1 antiarrhythmic, and 2 serotonin reuptake inhibitors (one of which also studied an anticonvulsant). A wide variety of medications is effective for perioperative breast analgesia, but results vary by agent and dose. The most efficacious are likely NSAIDs and anticonvulsants. Some agents may also decrease the incidence of chronic postoperative pain, including flurbiprofen, gabapentin, venlafaxine, and memantine. While many individual agents are well studied, optimal combinations of analgesic medications remain unclear.

Isoflurane not at the expense of postoperative nausea and vomiting in cardiac anesthesia - an observational study

OBJECTIVES

Inhalative anesthesia is of common use, but is generally known to potentiate postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). With an internal change of anesthesia regimen from total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) to isoflurane (in terms of myocardial protection) in cardiac anesthesia a higher incidence of PONV was to be expected. Therefore, we evaluated the incidence of PONV after the simultaneous implementation of PONV prophylaxis.

METHODS

The incidence of PONV, prospectively assessed in 197 cardiac surgery patients (68 y ± 10.4, 66.5% male) having isoflurane plus dual PONV prophylaxis with dexamethasone and droperidol, was compared with previous data of 190 controls (67 y ± 9.6, 71% male) having TIVA without and with single or dual PONV prophylaxis (n = 64 dexamethasone and droperidol, n = 25 dexamethasone, n = 101 only TIVA), and the Apfel-scoring (0-4 depending on PONV-risk). DRKS00014275. Statistics: Chi²-test, p < .05 (Bonferroni).

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV under isoflurane with antiemetic prophylaxis was 20.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4; 27.4) compared to 30.5% (95%CI 24; 37.6) under TIVA (p = .029; dexamethasone and droperidol 23.4% (95%CI 13.8; 35.7); dexamethasone 32% (95%CI 14.9; 53.5); only TIVA 34.7% (95%CI 25.5; 44.8)), but was not lower in high-risk patients than predicted according to Apfel-scoring 4 (71.4 vs. 78%).

CONCLUSION

In cardiac anesthesia, the use of isoflurane is not at the expense of PONV when using a risk-independent two-drug-prophylaxis. It is even beneficial resulting surprisingly in a lower incidence of PONV than under TIVA unless with and without prophylaxis. Patients with the highest risk for PONV and receiving isoflurane should receive a third antiemetic prophylactic drug.

Effects of pre-emptive pregabalin and multimodal anesthesia on postoperative opioid requirements in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Previous findings indicate that pre-emptive pregabalin as part of multimodal anesthesia reduces opioid requirements compared to conventional anesthesia in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). However, recent studies show contradictory evidence suggesting that pregabalin does not reduce postoperative pain or opioid consumption after surgeries. We conducted a register-based analysis on RALP patients treated over a 5-year period to evaluate postoperative opioid consumption between two multimodal anesthesia protocols.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients undergoing RALP between years 2015 and 2019. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists status 1-3, age between 30 and 80 years and treated with standard multimodal anesthesia were included in the study. Pregabalin (PG) group received 150 mg of oral pregabalin as premedication before anesthesia induction, while the control (CTRL) group was treated conventionally. Postoperative opioid requirements were calculated as intravenous morphine equivalent doses for both groups. The impact of pregabalin on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and length of stay (LOS) was evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 245 patients in the PG group and 103 in the CTRL group. Median (IQR) opioid consumption over 24 postoperative hours was 15 (8-24) and 17 (8-25) mg in PG and CTRL groups (p = 0.44). We found no difference in postoperative opioid requirement between the two groups in post anesthesia care unit, or within 12 h postoperatively (p = 0.16; p = 0.09). The length of post anesthesia care unit stay was same in each group and there was no difference in PONV Similarly, median postoperative LOS was 31 h in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing RALP and receiving multimodal analgesia do not need significant amount of opioids postoperatively and can be discharged soon after the procedure. Pre-emptive administration of oral pregabalin does not reduce postoperative opioid consumption, PONV or LOS in these patients.

Prevention and Treatment of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV): A Review of Current Recommendations and Emerging Therapies

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is one of the most frequent adverse events after surgery and anesthesia. It is distressing for the patient and can lead to other postoperative complications. Management of PONV involves a framework of risk assessment, multimodal risk reduction, and prophylactic measures, as well as prompt rescue treatment. There has been a significant paradigm shift in the approach towards PONV prevention. There have also been several emerging therapeutic options for PONV prophylaxis and treatment. In this review, we will discuss the up-to-date PONV management guidelines and highlight novel therapeutic options which have emerged in the last few years.

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).

Effect of a preoperative single-dose steroid on pulmonary function and postoperative symptoms after modified radical mastectomy: results of a randomized clinical trial

Background

Evidence suggests that a preoperative single-dose steroid improves lung function and decreases the incidence of postoperative symptoms; however, this has not been sufficiently proved in modified radical mastectomy for cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preoperative single-dose steroid administration for postoperative lung function and postoperative symptoms in women undergoing modified radical mastectomy for breast cancer.

Methods

In this controlled clinical trial, conducted between June 2014 and October 2018, we examined 81 patients. Patients received a preoperative single dose of 8 mg dexamethasone (n=41; treatment group) or placebo (sterile injectable water; n=40; control group). We obtained data on postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain intensity and performed spirometry 1 h before and 1, 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. The use of additional analgesic or antiemetic drugs was recorded. We followed up patients 30 days after discharge and recorded any surgical or medical complications.

Results

The age distribution and anthropometric variables of the two groups were similar. Almost 50% of the patients in each group also underwent breast reconstruction. In the treatment group, pain intensity was always lower, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was lower at 6, 12, and 24 h, and additional analgesics or antiemetics were required less frequently (P<0.05 for all). Both treatment and control groups demonstrated a restrictive ventilatory pattern immediately after surgery, which in the treatment group was reversed after 24 h. However, the reconstructed patients had a more intense and prolonged restrictive pattern (P<0.05). Surgical morbidity included one seroma observed in the control group. No infections occurred at the surgical site or at any other level, and no patient developed any metabolic disorder. No mortality was observed in either group.

Conclusions

This study establishes that a single preoperative dose of dexamethasone markedly decreased the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, improved respiratory parameters, and decreased the need for additional postoperative analgesic or antiemetic drugs.

Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02305173).

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.

Dexamethasone Dose and Early Postoperative Recovery after Mastectomy

Background

Pain and nausea are the most common challenges in postoperative recovery after mastectomy. Preventive measures include multimodal analgesia with preoperative glucocorticoid. The aim of this study was to investigate whether 24 mg of preoperative dexamethasone was superior to 8 mg on early recovery after mastectomy in addition to a simple analgesic protocol.

Methods

In a randomized, double-blind trial, patients 18 yr of age or older having mastectomy were randomized 1:1 to 24 mg or 8 mg dexamethasone, and all received a standardized anesthetic and surgical protocol with preoperative acetaminophen, total intravenous anesthesia, and local anesthetic wound infiltration. The primary endpoint was number of patients transferred to the postanesthesia care unit according to standardized discharge criteria (modified Aldrete score). Secondary endpoints included pain and nausea at extubation, transfer from the operating room and upon arrival at the ward, length of stay, seroma occurrence, and wound infections.

Results

One hundred thirty patients (65 in each group) were included and analyzed for the primary outcome. Twenty-three (35%) in each group met the primary outcome, without significant differences in standardized discharge scores (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.49 to 2.05], P &gt; 0.999). More patients had seroma requiring drainage in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, 94% versus 81%, respectively (odds ratio, 3.53 [95% CI, 1.07 to 11.6], P = 0.030). Median pain scores were low at all measured time points, numeric rating scale less than or equal to 2 versus less than or equal to 1 in the 24 mg versus 8 mg group, respectively. Six patients in each group (9%) experienced nausea at any time during hospital stay (P &gt; 0.999). Length of stay was median 11 and 9.2 h in the 24 and 8 mg group, respectively (P = 0.217).

Conclusions

The authors found no evidence of 24 mg versus 8 mg of dexamethasone affecting the primary outcome regarding immediate recovery after mastectomy. The authors observed a short length of stay and low pain scores despite a simple analgesic protocol.

Editor’s Perspective

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Consensus Review of Optimal Perioperative Care in Breast Reconstruction: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery following surgery can be achieved through the introduction of evidence-based perioperative maneuvers. This review aims to present a consensus for optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing breast reconstructive surgery and to provide evidence-based recommendations for an enhanced perioperative protocol.

METHODS

A systematic review of meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohorts was conducted for each protocol element. Smaller prospective cohorts and retrospective cohorts were considered only when higher level evidence was unavailable. The available literature was graded by an international panel of experts in breast reconstructive surgery and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Each recommendation was graded following a consensus discussion among the expert panel. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Society.

RESULTS

High-quality randomized controlled trial data in patients undergoing breast reconstruction informed some of the recommendations; however, for most items, data from lower level studies in the population of interest were considered along with extrapolated data from high-quality studies in non-breast reconstruction populations. Recommendations were developed for a total of 18 unique enhanced recovery after surgery items and are discussed in the article. Key recommendations support use of opioid-sparing perioperative medications, minimal preoperative fasting and early feeding, use of anesthetic techniques that decrease postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain, use of measures to prevent intraoperative hypothermia, and support of early mobilization after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Based on the best available evidence for each topic, a consensus review of optimal perioperative care for patients undergoing breast reconstruction is presented.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, V.

Effects of preoperative dexamethasone on postoperative pain, nausea, vomiting and respiratory function in women undergoing conservative breast surgery for cancer: Results of a controlled clinical trial

The objective was to evaluate whether preoperative administration of dexamethasone improved postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain and respiratory function tests in women undergoing conservative surgery for breast cancer. This was a controlled clinical trial conducted between June 2013 and October 2014. Eighty patients were evaluated. Patients received a preoperative dose of 8 mg of dexamethasone (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40). The data on PONV and pain intensity was obtained and forced spirometry tests were performed, 1 hr before and at 1, 6, 12 and 24 hr after surgery. Any use of additional analgesic/antiemetic drugs was recorded. Patients were followed until 30 days after surgery for any surgical or medical complications. The pain intensity was lower in the treatment group for all periods; PONV was lower at 6, 12 and 24 hr; Additional analgesics/antiemetics were required less frequently (all p < .05). Both groups exhibited a restrictive ventilatory pattern immediately after surgery, which was reversed in the following hours. However, spirometric values were higher in the dexamethasone group. There were no pulmonary or metabolic complications after surgery. Our conclusions were that dexamethasone significantly reduced the incidences of PONV, pain and improved respiratory parameters, and reduced the need for additional postoperative analgesic and antiemetic drugs.

Body Mass Index Influences the Prognostic Impact of Combined Nuclear Insulin Receptor and Estrogen Receptor Expression in Primary Breast Cancer

The prognostic importance of tumor-specific nuclear insulin receptor (InsR) expression in breast cancer is unclear, while membrane and cytoplasmic localization of InsR is better characterized. The insulin signaling network is influenced by obesity and may interact with the estrogen receptor α (ERα) signaling. The purpose was to investigate the interplay between nuclear InsR, ER, body mass index (BMI), and prognosis. Tumor-specific expression of nuclear InsR was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in tissue microarrays from 900 patients with primary invasive breast cancer without preoperative treatment, included in a population-based cohort in Sweden (2002-2012) in relation to prognosis. Patients were followed for up to 11 years during which 107 recurrences were observed. Nuclear InsR⁺ expression was present in 214 patients (23.8%) and increased with longer time between surgery and staining (P < 0.001). There were significant effect modifications by ER status and BMI in relation to clinical outcomes. Nuclear InsR⁺ conferred higher recurrence-risk in patients with ER⁺ tumors, but lower risk in patients with ER^- tumors (P_interaction = 0.003). Normal-weight patients with nuclear InsR⁺ tumors had higher recurrence-risk, while overweight or obese patients had half the recurrence-risk compared to patients with nuclear InsR^- tumors (P_interaction = 0.007). Normal-weight patients with a nuclear InsR^-/ER⁺ tumor had the lowest risk for recurrence compared to all other nuclear InsR/ER combinations [HR_adj 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.97], while overweight or obese patients with nuclear InsR^-/ER^- tumors had the worst prognosis (HR_adj 7.75, 95% CI: 2.04-29.48). Nuclear InsR was more prognostic than ER among chemotherapy-treated patients. In summary, nuclear InsR may have prognostic impact among normal-weight patients with ER⁺ tumors and in overweight or obese patients with ER^- tumors. Normal-weight patients with nuclear InsR^-/ER⁺ tumors may benefit from less treatment than normal-weight patients with other nuclear InsR/ER combinations. Overweight or obese patients with nuclear InsR^-/ER^- tumors may benefit from more tailored treatment or weight management.

Corticosteroids or Not for Postoperative Nausea: A Double-Blinded Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after general anaesthesia, and corticosteroids are used in many protocols for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). However, surgical techniques are developing, and ERAS protocols need to be reevaluated from time to time.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

In this study, we compared the effects of oral vs. parenteral corticosteroid administration on postoperative nausea. Elective Roux-y-gastric bypass (RYGB) patients were randomly assigned to either 8 mg betamethasone orally (n = 50) or parentally (n = 25) or as controls (n = 25), in a double-blind design. PONV risk factors were noted. All patients had the same anaesthetic technique. Data were collected at baseline, on arrival to the recovery room (RR) and at five more time points during the first 24 h. Nausea and tiredness were patient assessed using visual analogue scales; rescue drug consumption was recorded.

RESULTS

Operation time was 30-40 min. Neither demographics nor risk factors for nausea differed between groups. Neither peak values for nor total amount of nausea differed between groups. The number of supplemental injections was the same for all groups.

COMMENTS

In a setting of modern laparoscopic RYGB, the value of betamethasone in preventing PONV seems to be limited. ERAS protocols may need re-evaluation.

Can acute pain treatment reduce postsurgical comorbidity after breast cancer surgery? A literature review

Regional analgesia, opioids, and several oral analgesics are commonly used for the treatment of acute pain after breast cancer surgery. While all of these treatments can suppress the acute postsurgical pain, there is growing evidence that suggests that the postsurgical comorbidity will differ in accordance with the type of analgesic used during the surgery. Our current study reviewed the effect of analgesics used for acute pain treatments on the major comorbidities that occur after breast cancer surgery. A considerable number of clinical studies have been performed to investigate the relationship between the acute analgesic regimen and common comorbidities, including inadequate quality of recovery after the surgery, persistent postsurgical pain, and cancer recurrence. Previous studies have shown that the choice of the analgesic modality does affect the postsurgical comorbidity. In general, the use of regional analgesics has a beneficial effect on the occurrence of comorbidity. In order to determine the best analgesic choice after breast cancer surgery, prospective studies that are based on a clear definition of the comorbidity state will need to be undertaken in the future.