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

Effects of dexamethasone on the EC50 of remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine achieving analgesia during pancreatic extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: a prospective, randomized and controlled study

BACKGROUND

In addition to their classic genomic effects, glucocorticoids also manifest rapid non genomic effects. We speculate that dexamethasone has the potential prompt onset of analgesic effects. The objective of this study is to investigate the influence of a single preoperative dose of dexamethasone on the half maximal effective concentration (EC50) of remifentanil when combined with dexmedetomidine for pain relief during pancreatic extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (P-ESWL).

METHODS

A total of 60 patients undergoing P-ESWL were enrolled and randomized at 1:1 ratio into the dexamethasone (DXM) group and the placebo group. Before anesthesia induction, patients in DXM group received an intravenous injection of 8 mg dexamethasone, while subjects in placebo group received an equal dose of physiological saline. Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) was performed based on remifentanil in combination with dexmedetomidine. Remifentanil was administered by TCI with an initial target concentration of 2.5 µg/mL for both groups. A positive response was defined as that VAS score > 3 by the patient at any time during the procedure. Subsequent target concentrations were adjusted by Dixon up-down sequential method, where dose modifications were performed by 0.3 ng/mL intervals, based on the response of the previous patient. The EC50 of remifentanil for pain relief during P-ESWL treatment was calculated using Dixon's up-and-down method. Hemodynamic variables, oxygen saturation and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

Dixon up-and-down method revealed that the EC50 of remifentanil was significantly higher in placebo group (2.65 ± 0.28 ng/mL) than in DXM group (2.02 ± 0.23 ng/ml) (P < 0.001). Hemodynamic parameter exhibited a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) before and after induction in placebo group; however, data of the two groups were comparable (P>0.05). Less adverse events occurred in DXM group, including the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and analgesia requirement with in the first 24 h following the procedure at ward.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone exerted analgesic effects with a rapid onset, and patients received dexamethasone 8 mg preoperative had a lower required EC50 of remifentanil during P-ESWL. It is also associated with reduced PONV in addition to reduced postoperative analgesic consumption in the first postoperative 24 h.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300078171) on 30/11/2023.

Chronic Pain Following Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer survival rates have increased significantly, underscoring the importance of enhancing long-term health-related quality of life. Breast reconstruction following mastectomy has emerged as a common approach that contributes to improved health-related quality of life. Nonetheless, chronic pain following breast reconstruction is a prevalent issue that has a negative impact on overall well-being.

METHODS

To examine recent findings on chronic pain after breast reconstruction and progress in pain management, we performed a review of the literature through independent searches using the MEDLINE database within NIH National Library of Medicine PubMed.

RESULTS

The review suggested that autologous reconstruction causes chronic postsurgical pain, especially at specific donor sites, whereas implant-based reconstruction does not seem to increase the risk of chronic pain. Moreover, certain operational and patient factors are also associated with chronic pain. Appropriate pain management can reduce chronic pain and prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review evaluated the characteristics of long-term chronic pain after breast reconstruction. The findings provide patients with important treatment information and will assist with their decision on their preferred treatment.

Pain associated with breast cancer: etiologies and therapies

Pain associated with breast cancer is a prevalent problem that negatively affects quality of life. Breast cancer pain is not limited to the disease course itself but is also induced by current therapeutic strategies. This, combined with the increasing number of patients living with breast cancer, make pain management for breast cancer patients an increasingly important area of research. This narrative review presents a summary of pain associated with breast cancer, including pain related to the cancer disease process itself and pain associated with current therapeutic modalities including radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and surgery. Current pain management techniques, their limitations, and novel analgesic strategies are also discussed.

Evidence-Based Guideline on the Prevention and Management of Perioperative Pain for Breast Cancer Peoples in a Low-Resource Setting: A Systematic Review Article

Background

Breast surgery for breast cancer is associated with significant acute and persistent postoperative pain. Surgery is the primary type of treatment, but up to 60% of breast cancer patients experience persistent pain after surgery, and 40% of them develop acute postmastectomy pain syndrome. Preoperative stress, involvement of lymph nodes while dissecting, and the postoperative psychological state of the patients play vital roles in managing the postoperative pain of the patients. The objective of this study is to develop evidence-based guideline on the prevention and management of perioperative pain for breast cancer surgical patients.

Methods

An exhaustive literature search was made from PubMed, Cochrane Review, PubMed, Google Scholar, Hinari, and CINAHIL databases that are published from 2012 to 2022 by setting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After data extraction, filtering was made based on the methodological quality, population data, interventions, and outcome of interest. Finally, one guideline, two meta-analyses, ten systematic reviews, 25 randomized clinical trials and ten observational studies are included in this review, and a conclusion was made based on their level of evidence and grade of recommendation.

Results

A total of 38 studies were considered in this evaluation. The development of this guideline was based on different studies performed on the diagnosis, risk stratification and risk reduction, prevention of postoperative pain, and treatments of postoperative pain.

Conclusion

The management of postoperative pain can be categorized as risk assessment, minimizing risk, early diagnosis, and treatment. Early diagnosis is the mainstay to identify and initiate treatment. The perioperative use of a nonpharmacological approach (including preoperative positive inspirational words and positive expectation) as an adjunct to the intraoperative regional anesthetic technique with general anesthesia with proper dosage of the standard pharmacological multimodal regimens is the first-line treatment. For postoperative analgesia, an extended form of intraoperative regional technique, nonpharmacologic technique, and NSAIDs can be used with the opioid-sparing anesthesia technique.

Effect of dexamethasone administration for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis on glucose levels in adults with diabetes undergoing elective surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to evaluate the effect of intravenous dexamethasone given intraoperatively for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis on maximal blood glucose level within the initial 24 hours following elective surgery for patients with diabetes.

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a prevalent adverse effect of anesthesia that leads to morbidity, increased health care costs, and unanticipated hospital admissions. Dexamethasone is an effective prophylactic agent that confers secondary analgesic and anti-inflammatory benefits. However, its use in patients with diabetes remains controversial due to the potential for increased postoperative blood glucose levels.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This review considered studies with participants 18 years of age or older with type 1 or 2 diabetes undergoing an elective surgical procedure. Eligible studies reported postoperative blood glucose levels in adults with diabetes after receiving a single 4-10 mg prophylactic dose of intravenous dexamethasone intraoperatively for postoperative nausea and vomiting. The primary outcome was maximum blood glucose level in the first 24 hours after surgery. All study designs were eligible for inclusion. Studies were excluded if they lacked a control group with diabetes or if they did not report maximum blood glucose values in both groups.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Embase, Web of Science, TRIP database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was completed in October 2021. Gray literature resources were also searched. No date or language restrictions were applied. Methodological quality was assessed using JBI appraisal tools for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies. A meta-analysis of maximal postoperative blood glucose level within 24 hours of surgery was performed, as well as subgroup analyses by dexamethasone dose, insulin treatment, and study design type.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (4 randomized controlled trials, 6 cohort studies, and 1 case-control study) were included in this review, with 1 study excluded from meta-analysis and results reported narratively. The total sample size of studies included in meta-analysis was 2567. The administration of dexamethasone significantly increased maximal blood glucose levels in the 24 hours immediately following surgery compared with control groups with diabetes, as demonstrated by randomized controlled trials (mean difference [MD] 39.56 mg/dL; 95% CI 16.18 to 62.94; P < 0.001; I2 = 87%) and observational studies (MD 26.31 mg/dL; 95% CI 7.10 to 45.52; P = 0.007; I2 = 92%). This increase in blood glucose was significant for all doses of dexamethasone: 4 mg (MD 40.81 mg/dL; 95% CI 2.42 to 79.19; P = 0.001; I2 = 91%), 8 mg (randomized controlled trials only; MD 39.45 mg/dL; 95% CI 15.32 to 63.58; P = 0.001; I2 = 86%), and mixed 4-10 mg dose (MD 30.82 mg/dL; 95% CI 6.75 to 54.88; P < 0.012; I2 = 93%). Postoperative hyperglycemia persisted in studies using insulin treatment as well as those not using insulin protocols. The overall certainty of the findings ranged from very low for outcomes that included cohort studies to moderate when outcomes from randomized controlled trials were analyzed separately. However, the quantitative findings of the experimental and observational studies were clinically similar. Risk of bias presented minimal concerns in all included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone leads to transient postoperative hyperglycemia in patients with diabetes undergoing elective surgery when given as a single 4-10 mg intravenous dose for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. The clinical relevance of hyperglycemia is debatable given its small magnitude and transient nature. Without more tightly controlled data, methodological consistency, and baseline blood glucose values, it is impossible to test causal links between hyperglycemia and pre-existing patient factors (eg, hemoglobin A1C levels) or postoperative complications.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020185607.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation versus dexamethasone for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting in breast surgery: A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation and dexamethasone can reduce postoperative nausea and/or vomiting. In this noninferiority study, we compared the effects of Neiguan acupoint (PC6) transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation with dexamethasone to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting in female patients undergoing breast surgery.

METHODS

In total, 280 patients were randomized into the following 2 groups: transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (n = 140) and dexamethasone (n = 140). Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation was performed 0.5 hours before anesthesia induction, immediately after entering the post-anesthesia care unit, and every 3 hours after leaving the post-anesthesia care unit. In the postoperative ward, the anesthetist instructed the patient's family members to assist the patient with PC6 patient-controlled transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation. Patients in the dexamethasone group were given 8 mg dexamethasone (intravenously) at 0.5 hours before induction of anesthesia. The incidence of nausea, vomiting, need for rescue antiemetics, patient satisfaction score, and the feasibility results of PC6 patient-controlled transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation were recorded 24 hours after surgery.

RESULT

Within 0 to 24 hours after surgery, the incidence of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting in the transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation group was not inferior to the dexamethasone group (31.1% vs 27.9%, per protocol risk difference 3.2; 95% confidence interval -7.7 to 14.0). The results of the intention-to-treat analysis (30.7% vs 27.1%, risk difference 3.6; 95% confidence interval -7.0 to 14.2) agreed with the per protocol analysis. Patient satisfaction score in the transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation group was higher than that in the dexamethasone group (3.9 ± 0.1 vs 3.6 ± 0.1, P = .003). The scheme of preventing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting by PC6 patient-controlled transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation was feasible.

CONCLUSION

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation was noninferior to dexamethasone in preventing postoperative nausea and/or vomiting within 24 hours after breast surgery. Neiguan acupoint patient-controlled transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation was feasible to prevent postoperative nausea and/or vomiting.

A Clinical Study to Compare the Antiemetic Efficacy of Prophylactic Ondansetron Versus Ondansetron with Dexamethasone Combination Therapies in Women Undergoing Breast Surgeries: A Randomized Control Trial

Background:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a patient-specific concern. Ambulatory breast surgeries are on the rise with higher chances of PONV among the recipient women. PONV remains one of the concerns of unanticipated readmission leading to additional cost of surgery along with patient dissatisfaction. There are limited works of literature about PONV and its prevention in breast surgeries. The primary objective of this study was to compare the prophylactic antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron monotherapy with that of the combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention on PONV in breast surgeries by observing the incidence of PONV. Secondary objectives were to assess the percentage of participants requiring rescue antiemetics, know the side effects of drugs, and analyze the effect of the surgical duration of breast surgeries in both groups.

Methods:

Group ondansetron (O) received 0.1 mg/kg IV ondansetron and group ondansetron and dexamethasone (OD) received 0.1 mg/kg IV ondansetron and 0.1 mg/kg of dexamethasone. The incidence of PONV in the first 24 h, percentage of population receiving rescue antiemetics, surgical duration, and hemodynamic parameters were noted.

Results:

In the 0 h to 6 h postoperative period, 38.9% of participants of group O had PONV, whereas only 13.9% in group OD had PONV, which was statistically significant ( P < .016). About 30.6% of study population in group O and 8.3% in group OD required rescue antiemetics which was statistically significant ( P = .017). Surgical duration of more than 120 min had a statistically significant higher incidence of PONV in the O group with a P-value of .048.

Conclusion:

The combination of prophylactic ondansetron with dexamethasone is more efficacious than ondansetron alone for the prevention of PONV in women undergoing breast surgeries.

Impact of Perioperative Multiple Doses of Glucocorticoids on Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte Subsets and Inflammatory Cytokines in Patients With Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Purpose

Surgery-induced immunosuppression is associated with infectious complications and cancer recurrence. This study aimed to characterize the effects of perioperative multiple doses of glucocorticoids on the peripheral immune environment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Methods

In this retrospective study, surgical patients with lung cancer were included. Lymphocyte subsets, lymphocyte phenotypes, lymphocyte functions, and inflammatory cytokines were evaluated in the peripheral blood preoperatively, then at 1 day and 7 days postoperatively. Levels of immune cells and inflammatory factors were compared between those who did or did not receive glucocorticoids at all time points.

Results

Multiple doses or high doses (15–20 mg dexamethasone equivalents) of glucocorticoids that were all given within 24 h were associated with decreased absolute numbers of T cells, CD4⁺and CD8⁺T cells, B cells, and impaired T cells function at 1 day postoperatively while a single intraoperative low dose (5 mg) of dexamethasone had little influence on the peripheral environment. IL-1β, IL-6, and TNF-α were also more affected by multiple doses of glucocorticoids.

Conclusions

Among patients with lung cancer, perioperative multiple doses of glucocorticoids that are all given within a short time are associated with decreased immune cell counts and impaired T cells functions.

Respiratory Physiotherapy Intervention Strategies in the Sequelae of Breast Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review

Breast cancer treatments can trigger respiratory sequelae. Respiratory physiotherapy helps to eliminate or mitigate the sequelae by optimizing respiratory function. This systematic review aims to synthesize the scientific evidence and assess its quality regarding the use of respiratory physiotherapy in the sequelae of breast cancer. The Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PubMed, Web of Science, Scientific Electronic Library Online, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Literature Complete, and Scopus were searched. Study quality was determined using the PEDro scale, STROBE Statement, and Single-Case Experimental Design Scale. Ten studies, six clinical trials, one case study, and three observational studies were selected. The mean methodological quality of the clinical trials was 5.6, that of the case study was 7, and that of the observational studies was 56%. Respiratory physiotherapy has been observed to improve respiratory capacity, lung function, respiratory muscle strength, effort tolerance, dyspnea, fatigue, thoracic mobility, upper limb volume, sleep quality and quality of life, as well as sensitivity to adverse physiological reactions, nausea, vomiting, and anxiety. However, it is not effective for vasomotor symptoms. More clinical trials are needed. These studies should homogenize the techniques used, as well as improve their methodological quality.

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.

Pain Control After Mastectomy in Transgender Patients: Ultrasound-guided Pectoral Nerve Block II Versus Conventional Intercostal Nerve Block: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Mastectomy is sometimes performed in transgender patients, which may damage the regional nerves such as the pectoral and intercostobrachial nerves, leading to postoperative pain. An ultrasound-guided nerve block can be used to track and block the nerves properly.

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the ultrasound-guided type-II pectoral nerve block with the blind (conventional) intercostal nerve block (ICNB) for pain control after breast tissue reconstruction surgery in transgender patients.

Methods

In the present single-blind randomized clinical trial, 47 patients were randomly divided into two groups: (A) Ultrasound-guided type-II pectoral nerve block (n = 23) and (B) blind intercostal nerve block (n = 24). After nerve block in both groups, pain intensity at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery, upper limb paresthesia, frequency of nausea and vomiting, shortness of breath, hematoma, and the length of hospital stay were assessed.

Results

Patients who received the ultrasound-guided type-II pectoral nerve block had a greater reduction in pain intensity (24 h after surgery), opioid use (24 h after surgery), nausea, vomiting, and hospital stay than those who received ICNB, whereas the recovery time did not differ between the study groups.

Conclusions

The pectoral nerve block under ultrasound guidance, compared to the intercostal nerve block, in transgender patients can reduce the required dosage of opioids within 24 hours, pain intensity within 24 hours after surgery, the incidence of postoperative nausea, and vomiting, and the hospital stay of patients.

Opioid-Related Side Effects and Management

The following areas will be discussed in relation to opioid-related side effects and approaches to their management in the cancer patient.

Developing an enhanced recovery after surgery program for oncology patients who undergo hip or knee reconstruction surgery

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are applied in orthopedic surgery and are intended to reduce perioperative stress by implementing combined evidence-based practices with the cooperation of various health professionals as an interdisciplinary team. ERAS pathways include pre-operative patient counselling, regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques, post-operative pain management, early mobilization and early feeding. Studies have shown improvement in the recovery of patients who followed an ERAS program after hip or knee arthroplasty, compared with those who followed a traditional care approach. ERAS protocols reduce post-operative stress, contribute to rapid recovery, shorten length of stay (LOS) without increasing the complications or readmissions, improve patient satisfaction and decrease the hospital costs. We suggest that the ERAS pathway could reduce the LOS in hospital for patients undergoing total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These programs require good organization and handling by the multidisciplinary team. ERAS programs increase patient's satisfaction due to their active participation which they experience as personalized treatment. The aim of the study was to develop an ERAS protocol for oncology patients who undergo bone reconstruction surgeries using massive endoprosthesis, with a view to improving the surgical outcomes.

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome: A timely review of its predisposing factors and current approaches to treatment

Background:

Post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) has been reported to occur in 25–60% of patients following surgeries for breast cancer, the highest occurring cancer in women worldwide. There has been much research interest due to this high prevalence. However, there is still a lack of incorporation of PMPS prevention strategies in standard perioperative plans, and our understanding of this condition is still incomplete.

Objectives:

This narrative review discusses recent literature on modifiable risk factors, current approaches to prevention and treatment and potential directions for future treatment and research.

Methods:

A PubMed search with the relevant keywords was done for articles published in the last 10 years.

Results:

The incidence of PMPS can be reduced by early recognition and management of modifiable risk factors as well as the perioperative use of analgesics and regional nerve blocks. These also have a significant role in the management of established PMPS together with surgical interventions and physical therapy.

Conclusions:

PMPS is still poorly defined and hence underdiagnosed and undertreated at this point. Perioperative peripheral nerve blocks have a very promising role as preventive analgesia to reduce the risk of developing PMPS, but large-scale randomised controlled studies will need to be done to evaluate their comparative efficacy. There is a need to prioritise PMPS prevention as a standard inclusion into the perioperative plans of mastectomy patients.

Perioperative Pain Management and Opioid Stewardship: A Practical Guide

Surgical procedures are key drivers of pain development and opioid utilization globally. Various organizations have generated guidance on postoperative pain management, enhanced recovery strategies, multimodal analgesic and anesthetic techniques, and postoperative opioid prescribing. Still, comprehensive integration of these recommendations into standard practice at the institutional level remains elusive, and persistent postoperative pain and opioid use pose significant societal burdens. The multitude of guidance publications, many different healthcare providers involved in executing them, evolution of surgical technique, and complexities of perioperative care transitions all represent challenges to process improvement. This review seeks to summarize and integrate key recommendations into a "roadmap" for institutional adoption of perioperative analgesic and opioid optimization strategies. We present a brief review of applicable statistics and definitions as impetus for prioritizing both analgesia and opioid exposure in surgical quality improvement. We then review recommended modalities at each phase of perioperative care. We showcase the value of interprofessional collaboration in implementing and sustaining perioperative performance measures related to pain management and analgesic exposure, including those from the patient perspective. Surgery centers across the globe should adopt an integrated, collaborative approach to the twin goals of optimal pain management and opioid stewardship across the care continuum.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The goal of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the analgesic and antiemetic effects of adjuvant dexmedetomidine (DEX) for breast cancer surgery using a meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched to collect the studies that performed randomized controlled trials. The effect size was estimated by odd ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD). Statistical analysis was performed using the STATA 13.0 software.

RESULTS

Twelve published studies involving 396 DEX treatment patients and 395 patients with control treatment were included. Pooled analysis showed that the use of DEX significantly prolonged the time to first request of analgesia (SMD = 1.67), decreased the postoperative requirement for tramadol (SMD = -0.65) and morphine (total: SMD = -2.23; patient-controlled analgesia: SMD = -1.45) as well as intraoperative requirement for fentanyl (SMD = -1.60), and lower the pain score at 1 (SMD = -0.30), 2 (SMD = -1.45), 4 (SMD = -2.36), 6 (SMD = -0.63), 8 (SMD = -2.47), 12 (SMD = -0.81), 24 (SMD = -1.78), 36 (SMD = -0.92), and 48 (SMD = -0.80) hours postoperatively compared with the control group. Furthermore, the risks to develop postoperative nausea/vomiting (PONV) (OR = 0.38) and vomiting (OR = 0.54) were significantly decreased in the DEX group compared with the control group. The pain relief at early time point (2, 6, 12, 24 hours postoperatively) and the decrease in the incidence of PONV were especially obvious for the general anesthesia subgroup (P < .05) relative to local anesthesia subgroup (P >.05).

CONCLUSION

DEX may be a favorable anesthetic adjuvant in breast cancer surgery, which could lower postoperative pain and the risk to develop PONV. DEX should be combined especially for the patients undergoing general anesthesia.

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).

Preventing pain after breast surgery: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial-sequential analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to indirectly compare the efficacy of any intervention, administered perioperatively, on acute and persistent pain after breast surgery.

DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT

We searched for randomized trials comparing analgesic interventions with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing breast surgery under general anaesthesia. Primary outcome was intensity of acute pain (up to 6 hr postoperatively). Secondary outcomes were cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and chronic pain. We used an original three-step approach. First, meta-analyses were performed when data from at least three trials could be combined; secondly, trial sequential analyses were used to separate conclusive from unclear evidence. And thirdly, the quality of evidence was rated with GRADE.

RESULTS

Seventy-three trials (5,512 patients) tested loco-regional blocks (paravertebral, pectoralis), local anaesthetic infiltrations, oral gabapentinoids or intravenous administration of glucocorticoids, lidocaine, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists or alpha2 agonists. With paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a clinically relevant reduction in acute pain (visual analogue scale > 1.0 cm). With pectoralis blocks, and gabapentinoids, there was conclusive evidence of a reduction in the cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption (> 30%). With paravertebral blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a relative reduction in the incidence of PONV of 70%. For chronic pain, insufficient data were available.

CONCLUSIONS

Mainly with loco-regional blocks, there is conclusive evidence of a reduction in acute pain intensity, morphine consumption and PONV incidence after breast surgery. For rational decision making, data on chronic pain are needed.

SIGNIFICANCE

This quantitative systematic review compares eight interventions, published across 73 trials, to prevent pain after breast surgery, and grades their degree of efficacy. The most efficient interventions are paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, with moderate to low evidence for the blocks. Intravenous lidocaine and alpha2 agonists are efficacious to a lesser extent, but with a higher level of evidence. Data for chronic pain are lacking.

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 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after mastectomy. Although many researches have been studied the prophylactic effect of antiemetics, none of the results are effective. To overcome this problem, dexamethasone was used to relieve the occurrence of PONV. Since concerns about steroid-related morbidity still remain, We carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on PONV, post-operative pain undergoing mastectomy.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library database till June 2019 to identify eligible studies. Meanwhile, we also consulted some Chinese periodicals, such as China Academic Journals, Wanfang and Weipu. The research was reported according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. Randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis. Meanwhile, the assessment of the risk of bias was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version. The pooled data are processed by software RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Four studies with 490 patients were enrolled to this meta-analysis. Our study demonstrated that the dexamethasone group was significantly more effective than the placebo group in term of PONV (risk ratio [RR] = 0.46, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.30-0.70, P = .0003), nausea (RR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.10-0.68, P = .006) and vomiting (RR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04∼0.55, P = .004). The visual analog scale score was significantly diminished at 1 hour (weighted mean difference = -1.40, 95% CI: -1.53 to -1.26, P < .00001) in the dexamethasone group, while, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of visual analog scale at 24 hours (weighted mean difference = -0.56, 95% CI: -1.24 to 0.13, P = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Not only does Dexamethasone reduce the incidence of PONV but also decreases postoperative pain. However, we still need larger samples and higher quality studies to determine the relationship between symptoms and administration time to reach the conclusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD 42018118575.

PROSPECT guideline for oncological breast surgery: a systematic review and procedure-specific postoperative pain management recommendations

Analgesic protocols used to treat pain after breast surgery vary significantly. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature on this topic and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after oncological breast surgery. A systematic review using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance with procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials assessing postoperative pain using analgesic, anaesthetic or surgical interventions were identified. Seven hundred and forty-nine studies were found, of which 53 randomised controlled trials and nine meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Quantitative analysis suggests that dexamethasone and gabapentin reduced postoperative pain. The use of paravertebral blocks also reduced postoperative pain scores, analgesia consumption and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Intra-operative opioid requirements were documented to be lower when a pectoral nerves block was performed, which also reduced postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption. We recommend basic analgesics (i.e. paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) administered pre-operatively or intra-operatively and continued postoperatively. In addition, pre-operative gabapentin and dexamethasone are also recommended. In major breast surgery, a regional anaesthetic technique such as paravertebral block or pectoral nerves block and/or local anaesthetic wound infiltration may be considered for additional pain relief. Paravertebral block may be continued postoperatively using catheter techniques. Opioids should be reserved as rescue analgesics in the postoperative period. Research is needed to evaluate the role of novel regional analgesic techniques such as erector spinae plane or retrolaminar plane blocks combined with basic analgesics in an enhanced recovery setting.

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

Prophylactic Effects of Intravenous Dexamethasone and Lidocaine on Attenuating Hemodynamic-Respiratory and Pain Complications in Children Undergoing Cleft Palate Repair Surgery With General Anesthesia

This study aimed to compare the prophylactic effects of intravenous (IV) dexamethasone and lidocaine on hemodynamic condition, respiratory complications, pain control, and vomit incidence following cleft palate repair surgery. This double-blind randomized controlled trial was carried out on 87 children assigned to three groups. Prior to anesthesia, subjects in groups D and L received 0.2 and 1 mg/kg IV dexamethasone and lidocaine, respectively. Moreover, group C received placebo in a similar condition. The outcome variables were recorded prior to the surgery and then every 15 minutes during the surgical and recovery time. Mean heart rate (HR), mean arterial blood pressure (MABP), and mean end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) during the surgical time were not significantly different between dexamethasone and lidocaine groups. Dexamethasone significantly improved the level of blood oxygen saturation (SPO2) during the recovery time. Nevertheless, MABP in recovery time did not significantly decrease in the dexamethasone group. There were no significant differences in respiratory complications, pain score, and vomiting incidence between lidocaine and dexamethasone groups. Premedication with both IV dexamethasone and lidocaine provided similar stable hemodynamic and respiratory conditions during the surgical time. However, the use of dexamethasone developed more desirable effects on HR and SPO2 than administration of lidocaine during the recovery time. Both drugs significantly lessened postoperative pain compared to the placebo group at this time.

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.

Effects of anesthetic interventions on breast cancer behavior, cancer-related patient outcomes, and postoperative recovery

This narrative review will summarize our current understanding of the effects of perioperative interventions on patients undergoing surgical removal of breast malignancies. It will focus on how different anesthetic agents and perioperative interventions might affect both breast cancer behavior and/or tumor recurrence as well as postoperative recovery. The main objective of this study will be to describe the evidence and critically analyze preclinical and clinical studies on the use of intravenous versus inhaled anesthetic agents, opioids, regional anesthetics, and anesthetic adjuncts in patients undergoing breast cancer resection. We will look both at the evidence regarding cancer-related outcomes and postoperative recovery. A search of PubMed, from inception to May 2017 was performed using Mesh terms Breast Neoplasms [Mesh] OR cancer AND breast AND Anesthesia [Mesh]; "Anesthetics"[Mesh] AND "Breast Neoplasms/surgery"[Mesh]. Although no optimal anesthetic combination has been identified for patients undergoing breast cancer resection, it should be noted that based on the available evidence, an ideal anesthetic in this patient population would involve a combination of TIVA (propofol), regional anesthesia (paravertebral block)), non opioid sedatives (clonidine or dexmedetomidine), and COX-2 inhibition (ketorolac). Based on the current evidence, this combination of anesthetic and analgesic agents has the best chance of improving cancer-related outcomes and postoperative recovery.

Comparison of efficacy of palonosetron-dexamethasone combination with palonosetron or dexamethasone alone for prophylaxis against post-operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background and Aims:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is highly distressing and unpleasant symptom. Dexamethasone and palonosetron are effective antiemetics with minimal side effect profile. This study compares the efficacy of palonosetron or dexamethasone alone and their combination (palonosetron plus dexamethasone) for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods:

This prospective, randomised, double-blind trial was done on 187 adults, American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients, aged 18–75 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. They were allocated to three groups which were to receive either of the three treatment regimens: dexamethasone 8 mg (Group D, n = 57), palonosetron 0.075 mg (Group P, n = 66) or dexamethasone 8 mg plus palonosetron 0.075 mg (Group PD, n = 64). The primary outcome was incidence of PONV in 24 h and the secondary outcome was a number of rescue antiemetic required. One-way ANOVA test was used to compare the means amongst three groups. To compare the proportions in the groups, Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test/Two proportions Z-test was applied as appropriate.

Results:

Overall incidences of PONV in the study 24 h postoperatively were 23.4% in PD, 27.2% in P group and 56.14% in D group (P < 0.001). Requirement of rescue antiemetic was more in dexamethasone group than other two groups (PD = 1 time, P = 1.38 times and D = 1.5 times).

Conclusion:

Palonosetron alone and palonosetron-dexamethasone combination were equally effective in the prevention of PONV. Dexamethasone alone was least effective amongst the three groups. There is no difference between palonosetron and palonosetron-dexamethasone for PONV prevention.