The Effect of Timing of Dexamethasone Administration on Its Efficacy as a Prophylactic Antiemetic for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Standardizing the Dosage and Timing of Dexamethasone for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Prophylaxis at a Safety-Net Hospital System

BACKGROUND

A single dose of dexamethasone is routinely given during general anesthesia for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, although the exact dosage and timing of administration may vary between practitioners. The authors aimed to standardize the dosage and timing of this medication when given to adult patients undergoing general anesthesia for elective surgery.

METHODS

Baseline data for 7,483 preintervention cases were analyzed. The researchers attempted to use a standard dose of 8 to 10 mg induction of anesthesia, which, based on a literature review, was effective for PONV prophylaxis, had a similar safety profile as a 4 to 5 mg dose (including in diabetic patients), and may confer additional benefits such as improved prophylaxis and quality of recovery. The interventions included standardizing the medication concentration vials, altering electronic health record quick-select button options, simplifying the intraoperative charting process, and educating the anesthesia providers. The research team then tracked compliance with the standard of care for 2,167 cases after the interventions.

RESULTS

Overall compliance with the standard of care increased from 21.2% preintervention to 53.7% postintervention. The number of patients not receiving dexamethasone was reduced from 29.7% to 19.4%. Patients receiving a compliant dose at a noncompliant time increased from 16.3% to 23.8%. Postanesthesia care unit antiemetic administration also decreased after the interventions.

CONCLUSION

This study showed improvements in compliance with the dosage of medication with the interventions. However, compliance with the timing of administration remains challenging.

The effect of perioperative of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PANDEX): a study protocol for a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) nowadays serves as a standard treatment for patients with disorders of the pancreas, intestine, and bile duct. Although the mortality rate of patients undergoing PD has decreased significantly, postoperative complication rates remain high. Dexamethasone, a synthetic glucocorticoid with potent anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects, has been proven to have a favorable effect on certain complications. However, the role it plays in post-pancreatectomy patients has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after PD.

METHODS

The PANDEX trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentric, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-control, pragmatic study. The trial is designed to enroll 300 patients who are going to receive elective PD. Patients will be randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone or saline placebo, administered as an intravenous bolus within 5 min after induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score within 30 days after the operation. The secondary outcomes include postoperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo≥3), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP), infection, and unexpected relaparotomy, as well as postoperative length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

The PANDEX trial is the first randomized controlled trial concerning the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications of patients undergoing PD, with the hypothesis that the intraoperative use of dexamethasone can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and improve short-term outcomes after PD. The results of the present study will guide the perioperative use of dexamethasone and help improve the clinical management of post-pancreatectomy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05567094. Registered on 30 September 30 2022.

Guidelines on perioperative optimization protocol for the adult patient 2023

OBJECTIVE

The French Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine [Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR)] aimed at providing guidelines for the implementation of perioperative optimization programs.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 29 experts from the SFAR was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the outset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence.

METHODS

Four fields were defined: 1) Generalities on perioperative optimization programs; 2) Preoperative measures; 3) Intraoperative measures and; 4) Postoperative measures. For each field, the objective of the recommendations was to answer a number of questions formulated according to the PICO model (population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes). Based on these questions, an extensive bibliographic search was carried out using predefined keywords according to PRISMA guidelines and analyzed using the GRADE® methodology. The recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology and then voted on by all the experts according to the GRADE grid method. As the GRADE® methodology could have been fully applied for the vast majority of questions, the recommendations were formulated using a "formalized expert recommendations" format.

RESULTS

The experts' work on synthesis and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 30 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 19 were found to have a high level of evidence (GRADE 1±) and ten a low level of evidence (GRADE 2±). For one recommendation, the GRADE methodology could not be fully applied, resulting in an expert opinion. Two questions did not find any response in the literature. After two rounds of rating and several amendments, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong agreement among the experts was obtained to provide 30 recommendations for the elaboration and/or implementation of perioperative optimization programs in the highest number of surgical fields.

A comparison of prophylactic antiemetic therapy with palonosetron and dexamethasone as single-agents or in combination in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: A randomized trial

Background

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is quite high after laparoscopic surgeries. This study endeavors to compare the efficacy of the combination of palonosetron and dexamethasone with that of either drug alone in the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries.

Methods

This randomized, parallel-group trial was done on ninety adults of American Society of Anesthesiologists Grade I and II patients aged 18-60 years undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anesthesia. The patients were randomly divided into three groups of thirty patients each. Group P (n = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg intravenously (iv), Group D (n = 30) received dexamethasone 8 mg iv and Group P + D (n = 30) received palonosetron 0.075 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg iv. The primary outcome was incidence of PONV in 24 h, and the secondary outcome was a number of rescue antiemetics required. To compare the proportions in the groups, unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-square test, or Fisher's exact test was applied.

Results

We found that the overall incidence of PONV was 46.7% in Group P, 50% in Group D, and 43.3% in Group P + D during the first 24 h. Rescue antiemetic was required in 27% of the patients in Group P and Group D compared to 23% of the patients in Group P + D and twice in 3% of the patients in Group P, 7% of the patients in Group D, and none in Group P + D which were not significant.

Conclusions

The combination therapy of palonosetron plus dexamethasone did not significantly reduce the incidence of PONV when compared with either drug alone.

The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons Guidelines for the Definitive Surgical Management of Secondary and Tertiary Renal Hyperparathyroidism

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based recommendations for safe, effective, and appropriate treatment of secondary (SHPT) and tertiary (THPT) renal hyperparathyroidism.

BACKGROUND

Hyperparathyroidism is common among patients with chronic kidney disease, end-stage kidney disease, and kidney transplant. The surgical management of SHPT and THPT is nuanced and requires a multidisciplinary approach. There are currently no clinical practice guidelines that address the surgical treatment of SHPT and THPT.

METHODS

Medical literature was reviewed from January 1, 1985 to present January 1, 2021 by a panel of 10 experts in SHPT and THPT. Recommendations using the best available evidence was constructed. The American College of Physicians grading system was used to determine levels of evidence. Recommendations were discussed to consensus. The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons membership reviewed and commented on preliminary drafts of the content.

RESULTS

These clinical guidelines present the epidemiology and pathophysiology of SHPT and THPT and provide recommendations for work-up and management of SHPT and THPT for all involved clinicians. It outlines the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative management of SHPT and THPT, as well as related definitions, operative techniques, morbidity, and outcomes. Specific topics include Pathogenesis and Epidemiology, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, Preoperative and Perioperative Care, Surgical Planning and Parathyroidectomy, Adjuncts and Approaches, Outcomes, and Reoperation.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidelines were created to assist clinicians in the optimal management of secondary and tertiary renal hyperparathyroidism.

Dexamethasone versus placebo for prevention of nausea, vomiting and pain after open total abdominal hysterectomy

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a disturbing issue. Dexamethasone has been suggested for the prevention of PONV. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone as an anti-emetic and analgesic following total abdominal hysterectomy. The study was performed as a double blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial on 102 women undergoing an open total abdominal hysterectomy. The intervention group received 8 mg dexamethasone 1 h before surgery, and the control group received a placebo. The total number of emesis episodes during the 24 h after surgery did not show significant difference between the two groups, however, the number of emesis episodes in hours 2 and 4 after the surgery were less in the intervention group, but not in hours 0, 6, 12 and 24. The nausea severity in hours 0, 2, 4, 6 and 12 after the surgery, was less in the intervention group. The severity of pain was not different between the two groups.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an important and disturbing issue. It is one of the most common problems following gynaecological surgeries including open total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH). Dexamethasone has been suggested as a prophylaxis for the prevention of PONV.What do the results of this study add? Dexamethasone 8 mg is effective for the prevention of late onset PONV (after 2 h of surgery) in the cases of open total abdominal hysterectomy. However, it has no effect on PONV immediately following surgery (hour 0) and pain.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Dexamethasone can be considered as an effective prophylaxis for PONV for the first 24 h after an open total abdominal hysterectomy, but it has limited effects on the management of early onset of PONV; between 0 and 2 h after surgery. Since the highest rates of emesis episodes and nausea severity are at this time, it is suggested to combine another rapid onset medication with dexamethasone. Also, dexamethasone, 8 mg, cannot be considered for pain relief after an open total abdominal hysterectomy. Higher amounts of dexamethasone should be evaluated for this purpose, in order to find appropriate dosages.

Recovery After Adenotonsillectomy-Do Steroids Help? Outcomes From a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to compare pain control following adenotonsillectomy (AT) in children with and without a single postoperative dose of oral dexamethasone in addition to standard analgesic medication. The secondary objective was to compare changes in caregiver-reported snoring, return to normal diet and baseline function, and the number of phone calls and emergency department (ED) visits.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care university hospital.

METHODS

Children aged 3 to 10 years with sleep-disordered breathing who were scheduled to undergo AT were randomized to receive standard analgesia with or without dexamethasone (0.6 mg/kg) administered on the third postoperative day. Standard analgesia was defined as alternating weight-based doses of ibuprofen and acetaminophen. A nurse practitioner blinded to the study condition performed telephone surveys postoperatively, and the electronic medical record was reviewed.

RESULTS

Enrollment comprised 149 children, of whom 119 were included. When compared with the control group (n = 61, 51%), children who received dexamethasone (n = 58, 49%) had a greater decrease in reported pain score on day 4 (mean ± SD, 2.5 ± 3.1 vs 1.1 ± 3.5, P < .001). Additionally, steroid use was associated with fewer caregiver phone calls (18 [29.5%] vs 6 [10%]) and ED visits (6 [10%] vs 1 [2%]).

CONCLUSION

A single dose of dexamethasone administered on day 3 after adenotonsillectomy significantly improved pain control. There were fewer phone calls and ED visits in the steroid arm. These results support the use of oral steroids as an adjunct for postoperative pain control in children undergoing AT.

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).

Efficacy of Systemic Steroid Use Given One Day After Total Knee Arthroplasty for Pain and Nausea: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Systemic steroid has been used to control pain and nausea in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but most studies recommend a single dose administration prior to, or during, surgery. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of administration on 1 day postoperatively.

METHODS

Patients who were scheduled to undergo TKA were randomly assigned to the following groups: control group, receiving normal saline injection; group 1, receiving 10 mg dexamethasone intravenously (IV) 1 hour before surgery; group 2, receiving 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone (IV) 24 hours after surgery; or group 3, receiving 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone (IV) 24 hours after surgery (n = 44-46 per group). Primary outcomes were pain and nausea visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were analgesic administration, rescue antiemetic administration, C-reactive protein, range of motion, and complications.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain and nausea remained high for 48 hours post-TKA. Group 1 had lower pain and nausea VAS scores than did the control group (P < .01) for only 24 hours post-TKA. Groups 2 and 3 had lower pain and nausea VAS scores than did the control group and group 1 (P < .01) 48 hours post-TKA. Analgesic and antiemetic administration were significantly lower in groups 2 and 3 than in the control group during 48 hours after TKA. There were no differences in C-reactive protein level and range of motion, and complications were not detected.

CONCLUSION

The effect of preoperative and postoperative administration of dexamethasone for controlling pain and nausea was observed only for 24 hours. Considering that severe pain and nausea persisted for more than 48 hours after TKA, additional administration of dexamethasone at 1 day postoperatively is suggested.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Pain management after laparoscopic hysterectomy: systematic review of literature and PROSPECT recommendations

Background and objectives

Laparoscopic hysterectomy is increasingly performed because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery as compared with open abdominal hysterectomy. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the available literature regarding the management of pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

Strategy and selection criteria

Randomized controlled trials evaluating postoperative pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy published between January 1996 and May 2018 were retrieved, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, from the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Efficacy and adverse effects of analgesic techniques were assessed.

Results

Of the 281 studies initially identified, 56 were included. Of these, 31 assessed analgesic or anesthetic interventions and 25 assessed surgical interventions. Acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption. Limited evidence hindered recommendations on alpha-2-agonists. Inconsistent evidence was found in the studies investigating pregabalin and transversus abdominis plane block, and no evidence was found for intraperitoneal local anesthetics, port site infiltration, or single-port laparoscopy. Measures to lower peritoneal insufflation pressure or humidify or heat insufflated gas seem to reduce the incidence of shoulder pain, but not abdominal pain.

Conclusions

The baseline analgesic regimen for laparoscopic hysterectomy should include acetaminophen, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, dexamethasone, and opioids as rescue analgesics.

Dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plain (TAP) block for analgesia after abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block for the patients after abdominal surgery.

METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of science were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided TAP block with control for postoperative analgesia in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, the time to the first request for additional analgesics, and opioid consumption over 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Analysis was performed by RevMan 5.3 software and the quality of evidence was rated using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving 575 patients were included. Compared to the control, dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided TAP block significantly decreased visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at rest at 4h (mean difference [MD] = -1.01; 95% confidence intervals [CI], -1.29 to -0.73; P<0.00001; moderate quality of evidence), 6h (MD = -1.21; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.69; P<0.00001; low quality of evidence), and 12h after surgery (MD = -0.79; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.60; P<0.00001; moderate quality of evidence). No difference was found at 2h (MD = -0.64; 95% CI, -1.35 to 0.08; P = 0.08; low quality of evidence) and 24 h (MD = -0.41; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.09; P = 0.11; moderate quality of evidence) in VAS scores. The time to the first request for additional analgesics was prolonged in the dexamethasone group (MD = 3.08; 95% CI, 2.37 to 3.78; P<0.00001; moderate quality of evidence). Opioid consumption over 24 h after surgery was also reduced (MD = -5.42; 95% CI, -8.20 to -2.63; P = 0.0001; low quality of evidence). Meanwhile, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly decreased in the dexamethasone group (risk ratios [RR] = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.58; P<0.00001; high quality of evidence). No complications were reported in all the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone added to local anesthetics in ultrasound-guided TAP block was a safe and effective strategy for postoperative analgesia in adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery.

Perioperative multiple low-dose Dexamethasones improves postoperative clinical outcomes after Total knee arthroplasty

Background

The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of multiple low-dose dexamethasones in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

One hundred fifty patients were equally randomized into 3 groups: Group A (n = 50) received 2 doses of normal saline only; Group B (n = 50) received with 1 dose of intravenous dexamethasone and 1 dose of normal saline; Group C (n = 50) received with 2 doses of intravenous dexamethasone. The clinical outcomes and complications were assessed.

Results

The CRP and IL-6 were significantly lower in Group C and B than Group A at 24, 48, and 72 h postoperatively (P < 0.001 for all). The intensity of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in Group C was lower than Group A at 24 (P < 0.001, P = 0.002), 48 (P = 0.005, P = 0.041) and 72 h (P = 0.017, P = 0.031) postoperatively and Group B at 24 h (P = 0.027, P = 0.019) postoperatively. Pain were significantly less in Group C than Group A at 24 (P < 0.001), 48 h (P = 0.037) postoperatively and Group B 24 h (P = 0.030) postoperatively. Patients in Group C had better range of motion (ROM) and satisfaction than Group A (P < 0.001, P = 0.002) and B (P = 0.001, P = 0.043). No differences were found in complications.

Conclusions

The administration of 10 mg dexamethasone 1 h before the surgery, and repeated at 6 h postoperatively can significantly reduce the level of postoperative CRP and IL-6 and the incidence of PONV, relieve pain, achieve an additional analgesic effect, and improve the early ROM compared with the other two groups in TKA.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level I.

Trial registration

The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800017036). Registered on July 9, 2018.

Dexamethasone alone versus in combination with intra-operative super-hydration for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in female patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

Dexamethasone has a prophylactic effect on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and perioperative hydration is believed to play a role in PONV prophylaxis. This study was performed to examine the combined effects of pre-induction dexamethasone plus super-hydration on PONV and pain following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

A total of 100 female patients undergoing LC were enrolled and randomized equally into two groups. Group DF received 5 mg dexamethasone (pre-induction) plus 30 ml/kg Ringer's lactate (intraoperative) and group D received 5 mg dexamethasone (pre-induction) alone. Anesthetic and surgical managements were standardized for all patients. The incidence and severity of PONV, and intra and post-operative analgesic and postoperative antiemetic consumption, were assessed during the first 24 h postoperatively. Post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay and aggregated 24 h pain scores were calculated.

Results

Group DF had significantly lower PONV than group D (P = 0.03). The number of patients with the lowest PONV score was significantly increased in group DF (P = 0.03). Ondansetron consumption was significantly lower in group DF (P < 0.0001). The mean accumulated 24 h pain scores were significantly lower in group DF compared to group D (P < 0.0001). The time to first analgesic request was significantly longer in group DF than group D (P < 0.0001). In addition, total meperidine consumption during the first postoperative 24 h was significantly lower in group DF than group D (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

In female patients undergoing LC, pre-induction with 5 mg dexamethasone plus intraoperative 30 ml/kg Ringer's lactate solution decreased PONV and pain during the first 24 h postoperatively compared to 5 mg dexamethasone alone.

Discharge Criteria, Impact of the Patient and the Procedure: What the Oral Surgeon Should Know

This article is a concise review of discharge criteria following sedation or anesthesia relevant to the oral and maxillofacial surgeon. Topics covered include a general overview of the need for objective discharge criteria, a review of standardized criteria, and a brief discussion on specific anesthetic, patient, and surgical factors that can impact the safety of the immediate postoperative recovery and postdischarge periods.

Effect of dexamethasone on the onset time and recovery profiles of cisatracurium

BACKGROUND

The effect of dexamethasone injection on cisatracurium-induced neuromuscular block was compared according to different injection time points.

METHODS

One hundred seventeen patients were randomly assigned to three groups: 8 mg of dexamethasone injected intravenously 2-3 h before anesthesia (group A), just before anesthesia induction (group B), and at the end of surgery (control group). Three minutes after anesthesia induction, intubation was performed without neuromuscular blockers, and acceleromyography was initiated. All patients received 0.05 mg/kg cisatracurium; the onset time and recovery profiles were recorded.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were finally enrolled. The onset time (median [interquartile range], seconds) was significantly hastened in group A (520.0 [500.0-560.0], n = 30) compared to that in group B (562.5 [514.0-589.0], n = 22) (P = 0.008) and control group (586.5 [575.0-642.5], n = 28) (P < 0.001). The onset time in group B was faster than the control group (P = 0.015). The recovery time [mean (95% CI) minutes] was significantly hastened in group A [28.5 (27.3-29.6)] compared to that in group B [32.3 (31.0-33.6)] (P < 0.001) and control group [30.9 (29.9-31.8)] (P = 0.015). The total recovery time was significantly hastened more in group A [47.1 (45.5-48.6)] than group B [52.8 (51.6-54.0) minutes] (P < 0.001) and control group [50.5 (48.7-52.3) minutes] (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of 8 mg of dexamethasone hastened the onset and total recovery times of cisatracurium-induced block by approximately 15 and 9%, respectively if administered 2-3 h prior to surgery.

Comparative Pharmacology and Guide to the Use of the Serotonin 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Since the introduction of the serotonin 5-hydroxy tryptamine 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists in the early 1990s, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and post-discharge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) has decreased, yet continues to be a problem for the surgical patient. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists has helped define the approach and role of these antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. Pharmacological and clinical differences exist among these medications resulting in corresponding differences in effectiveness, safety, optimal dosage, time of administration, and use as combination and rescue antiemetic therapy. The clinical application of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist antiemetics has improved the prevention and treatment of PONV and PDNV. The most recent consensus guidelines for PONV published in 2014 outline the use of these antiemetics. The 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists play an important role to help prevent PONV and PDNV in perioperative care pathways such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS). Comparisons and guidelines for use of the 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists in relation to the risk for PONV and PDNV are reviewed.

Intravenous palonosetron compared with a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone in preventing post operative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynaecological surgeries under spinal anaesthesia, a randomised study

Background and Aims:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common complications in patients undergoing gynaecological surgeries under spinal anaesthesia (SA). Palonosetron has the unique property of controlling 'delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting' when compared to older serotonin antagonists. This study compared the effectiveness of palonosetron with a combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone in preventing PONV.

Methods:

Sixty patients undergoing gynaecological surgeries under SA were randomly allocated into two groups of thirty each, to receive either a combination of 0.3 mg of ramosetron and 8 mg of dexamethasone intravenously (IV) (Group RD) or 0.075 mg of palonosetron IV (Group P). The incidence of PONV, number of complete responders (no nausea, vomiting or use of rescue anti-emetics) and severity of nausea were evaluated during intra- and post-operative period.

Results:

The incidence of complete responders during intraoperative period was 80.0% in Group RD and 76.7% in Group P (P = 0.074) whereas postoperatively at 0–2 h and 2–6 h, it was 73.3% and 83.3% in Group RD respectively as compared to 46.6% and 56.6% in Group P respectively (P = 0.016 and P = 0.024). The incidence of PONV during 24 h of post-operative period was 30.00% in Group RD as compared to 60.00% in Group P (P = 0.0195). Nausea severity score and use of rescue anti-emetics did not vary between the groups.

Conclusion:

Combination of ramosetron and dexamethasone is more effective than palonosetron alone in preventing PONV in patients undergoing gynaecological surgeries under SA.

5HT3 Antagonists versus Dexamethasone in the Prevention of PONV in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Background. 5HT3 antagonist, an antiemetic alternative to dexamethasone, is an effective drug for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Methods. PubMed and The Cochrane Library (from inception to June 2016) were searched for relevant RCTs (randomized controlled trials). Results. Seven trials, totaling 682 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. This meta-analysis demonstrated that 5HT3 antagonist was as effective as dexamethasone in preventing PONV (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, [0.86, 1.45]; P = 0.40) within 24 hours of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and no significant heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I² = 0%; P = 0.98). During the early postoperative period (0-6 h), 5HT3 antagonists were superior to dexamethasone in reducing POV (RR, 0.31; 95% CI, [0.11, 0.93]; P = 0.04), while, in other postoperative stages (6-12 h, 12-24 h, and 0-24 h), it was not more effective in the prevention of POV than dexamethasone. And no significant difference was found in the prevention of PON between 5HT3 antagonists and dexamethasone at different postoperative periods (0-6 h, 6-12 h, 12-24 h, and 0-24 h). Conclusions. As a result, it is advisable to encourage 5HT3 antagonists as an alternative to dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

The risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting between surgical patients received propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia: A matched study

OBJECTIVES

The current consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) suggest that one of anesthetic risk factors is the use of volatile anesthetics. However, in clinical settings, it is rare to perceive propofol to be superior to volatile anesthetics for the prevention of PONV. To assess whether PONV is related to the type of anesthetic delivered, we compared the incidence and duration of PONV between propofol anesthesia and sevoflurane anesthesia.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of an institutional registry containing 21606 general anesthesia cases conducted following ethics board approval. Anesthesia for all patients was managed with propofol or sevoflurane. To avoid channeling bias, a propensity score analysis was used to generate a set of matched cases (propofol anesthesia) and controls (sevoflurane anesthesia), yielding 2554 matched patient pairs. The incidence and sustained rate of symptoms were compared as the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In the unmatched population, a higher incidence of PONV occurred following propofol anesthesia compared to sevoflurane anesthesia (propofol vs. sevoflurane anesthesia: 18.9% vs. 15.3%, respectively, p < 0.0001). The sustained rate of PONV over the course after propofol anesthesia was also higher than that following sevoflurane anesthesia (p < 0.001). Conversely, less PONV occurred after propofol compared to sevoflurane after propensity matching (propofol vs. sevoflurane anesthesia: 20.4% vs. 23.3%, respectively, p = 0.01). However, the sustained rate of PONV over the course after propofol anesthesia did not differ from that following sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Propofol could decrease the incidence of PONV compared with sevoflurane, although the duration of PONV was not affected as found in previous reports.

Comparison of dexamethasone or intravenous fluids or combination of both on postoperative nausea, vomiting and pain in pediatric strabismus surgery

BACKGROUND

Strabismus surgery is perhaps a pediatric surgical procedure that has the strongest evidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) risk. This randomized controlled blind study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of combined therapy of dexamethasone and intraoperative superhydration vs their monotherapy on the incidence and severity of PONV and on pain intensity after pediatric strabismus surgery.

METHODS

A total of 120 children aged 6 to 12 years undergoing strabismus surgery were randomized to equally 3 groups to receive 0.15 mg/kg dexamethasone (dexamethasone group) or intraoperative superhydration of lactated Ringer's solution in a dose of 30 mL/kg per fasting time (superhydration group), or a combination of dexamethasone and intraoperative fluid in the same strategy (combination therapy group). The incidence and severity of PONV and pain using visual analog scale score, and need for supplemental antiemetic and analgesic therapy and their consumptions were assessed and compared in the 3 studied groups for 24 hours postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of PONV and postoperative vomiting was significantly lower (P> .001) in the combination therapy group (5% and 5% respectively) compared with the dexamethasone group (35% and 30%) and superhydration group (32.5% and 35%). There was no significant difference among patients in the superhydration group and dexamethasone group in the cumulative incidences of PONV in the whole 24 hours postoperatively. Postoperative aggregated visual analog scale pain score and total acetaminophen consumption showed a significant reduction (P> .05) in the combination therapy group together with significant prolongation of time to the first analgesic request compared with both the superhydration group and the dexamethasone group.

CONCLUSION

Combined therapy of 0.15 mg/kg dexamethasone 1 minute before induction and intraoperative fluid superhydration is an effective and safe way to reduce PONV and pain better than monotherapy of dexamethasone, or intraoperative superhydration separately for pediatric strabismus surgery.

Nausea and Vomiting following Balanced Xenon Anesthesia Compared to Sevoflurane: A Post-Hoc Explorative Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Like other inhalational anesthetics xenon seems to be associated with post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We assessed nausea incidence following balanced xenon anesthesia compared to sevoflurane, and dexamethasone for its prophylaxis in a randomized controlled trial with post-hoc explorative analysis.

Methods

220 subjects with elevated PONV risk (Apfel score ≥2) undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomized to receive xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia and dexamethasone or placebo after written informed consent. 93 subjects in the xenon group and 94 subjects in the sevoflurane group completed the trial. General anesthesia was maintained with 60% xenon or 2.0% sevoflurane. Dexamethasone 4mg or placebo was administered in the first hour. Subjects were analyzed for nausea and vomiting in predefined intervals during a 24h post-anesthesia follow-up.

Results

Logistic regression, controlled for dexamethasone and anesthesia/dexamethasone interaction, showed a significant risk to develop nausea following xenon anesthesia (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.02–5.19, p = 0.044). Early-onset nausea incidence was 46% after xenon and 35% after sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.138). After xenon, nausea occurred significantly earlier (p = 0.014), was more frequent and rated worse in the beginning. Dexamethasone did not markedly reduce nausea occurrence in both groups. Late-onset nausea showed no considerable difference between the groups.

Conclusion

In our study setting, xenon anesthesia was associated with an elevated risk to develop nausea in sensitive subjects. Dexamethasone 4mg was not effective preventing nausea in our study. Group size or dosage might have been too small, and change of statistical analysis parameters in the post-hoc evaluation might have further contributed to a limitation of our results. Further trials will be needed to address prophylaxis of xenon-induced nausea.

Trial Registration

EU Clinical Trials EudraCT-2008-004132-20

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00793663

Comparison of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Prophylaxis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant complication after laparoscopic surgeries. Ondansetron and dexamethasone are most commonly used drugs for PONV prophylaxis. Comparisons of these two drugs have not been systematically reviewed till date. Methods. PubMed, PubMed Central, and CENTRAL databases were searched with the following words: "dexamethasone," "ondansetron," "laparoscopy," and "PONV" to identify randomized trials that compared ondansetron and dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgeries. Results. Data of 592 patients from 7 RCTs have been included in this meta-analysis. Incidence of postoperative nausea at 4-6 h is significantly lower when dexamethasone was used instead of ondansetron (p = 0.04; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24-0.98, M-H fixed). Incidence of nausea is similar at 24 hours (p = 0.08, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48, 1.05; M-H fixed); vomiting is also similar at 4-6 h (p = 0.43, OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.70-2.27; M-H fixed) and also at 24 h (p = 0.46, OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73, 1.16; M-H fixed). Conclusion. Dexamethasone is superior to ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea after 4-6 h of laparoscopic surgeries. However, both the drugs are of equal efficacy in preventing postoperative vomiting up to 24 h after surgery. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to clinical heterogeneity in the included studies.

Dexamethasone versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Dexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models.

Results

Seven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45).

Conclusions

Dexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continues to be one of the most common postsurgical medical problems. An understanding of the pathophysiology of PONV and the pharmacological profiles of agents affecting receptors involved in emesis is necessary to effectively treat PONV.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although serotonin receptor antagonists remain key in the multimodal approach to PONV management, new research developments involving antiemetics, such as neurokinin-1 antagonists, corticosteroids, dopamine antagonists, and cholinergic antagonists, have yielded valuable efficacy and safety information.

SUMMARY

Proper management of PONV includes an evaluation of risk factors, a strategy for prophylaxis, and rescue antiemetic treatment if necessary. In high-risk patients, combination therapy is recommended in preventing PONV. Knowledge of antiemetic efficacy and safety may facilitate an increase in patient satisfaction, decreased negative health consequences, and reduced medical costs.

Comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron for the prevention of post-operative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients

Background and Aims:

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has an 80% incidence in high-risk patients. This is despite the availability of several antiemetic drugs. Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonists are considered first-line for prophylaxis, ondansetron being the most commonly used agent. Ramosetron, another selective 5-HT₃ receptor antagonist, is more potent and longer acting than ondansetron. This study was conducted to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of ramosetron in comparison with ondansetron in patients at a high risk of PONV.

Methods:

This was a prospective randomised double-blind study carried out over a 6-month period in which 206 patients with at least two risk factors for PONV were randomised to receive ramosetron 0.3 mg or ondansetron 8 mg, 30 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea and need for rescue antiemetic were recorded over the next 24 h. Primary outcome was the incidence of PONV. Secondary outcomes included severity of nausea and need for rescue. The data were analysed using the Predictive Analytics Software (PASW, version 18: Chicago, IL, USA).

Results:

The incidence of PONV was found to be 35% in the ramosetron group as opposed to 43.7% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.199). Need for rescue antiemetic was 23.3% in the ramosetron group and 32% in the ondansetron group (P = 0.156) in the 24 h following surgery.

Conclusion:

Ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg were equally effective in reducing the incidence of PONV in high risk patients.

Dexamethasone for Morbidity After Subdural Electrode Insertion – A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

Invasive monitoring with subdural electrodes (SDE) for investigation of medically intractable epilepsy may be associated with undesirable immediate postoperative morbidity such as headache, nausea, vomiting, fever, and meningism. We undertook to evaluate the potential beneficial role of perioperative dexamethasone in reducing these symptoms.

Methods:

In a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial 30 patients undergoing SDE insertion were randomized to receive either placebo or a course of dexamethasone beginning one hour prior to surgery and tapering to discontinue over 72 hours postoperatively. Pain, pain relief, nausea, nausea relief, temperature, and meningism were assessed regularly in the postoperative period, and analgesic, antipyretic, and antiemetic drug requirements were tabulated.

Results:

One patient was withdrawn from the dexamethasone group due to lack of data. With regards to postoperative pain, the direction of benefit favoured dexamethasone but a significant treatment by time interaction prevented further analysis of treatment effect. The dexamethasone group did have significantly lower temperatures and higher nausea relief scores. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regards to pain relief, nausea, and meningism scores. The beneficial effects of dexamethasone were delayed in onset, of limited duration, and not uniform over the observation period.

Conclusion:

Dexamethasone appears to have a role in reducing immediate morbidity following SDE insertion but its effect is not uniform in the postoperative period; it appears to be delayed in onset, and of limited duration. Further study is necessary to determine the ideal dosing schedule.

Confronting the challenges of effective pain management in children following tonsillectomy

Tonsillectomy is an extremely common surgical procedure associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The post-operative challenges include: respiratory complications, post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage, nausea, vomiting and significant pain. The present model of care demands that most of these children are managed in an ambulatory setting. The recent Federal Drug Agency (FDA) warning contraindicating the use of codeine after tonsillectomy in children represents a significant change of practice for many pediatric otolaryngological surgeons. This introduces a number of other safety concerns when deciding on a safe alternative to codeine, especially since most tonsillectomy patients are managed by lay primary caregiver's at home. This review outlines the safety issues and proposes, based on currently available evidence, a preventative multi-modal strategy to manage pain, nausea and vomiting without increasing the risk of post-tonsillectomy bleeding.

The impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of prophylactic dexamethasone on post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), post-operative pain, and complications in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

METHODS

We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the prophylactic effect of dexamethasone versus placebo with or without other antiemetics for PONV in patients undergoing thyroidectomy. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0 software.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs that considered high quality evidence including 2,180 patients were analyzed. The meta-analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in the incidence of PONV (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.63, P < 0.00001), the need for rescue anti-emetics (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.57, P<0.00001), post-operative pain scores (WMD -1.17, 95% CI -1.91 to -0.44, P = 0.002), and the need for rescue analgesics (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50-0.83, P = 0.0008) in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to placebo, with or without concomitant antiemetics. Dexamethasone 8-10mg had a significantly greater effect for reducing the incidence of PONV than dexamethasone 1.25-5mg. Dexamethasone was as effective as other anti-emetics for reducing PONV (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.86-1.81, P = 0.24). A significantly higher level of blood glucose during the immediate post-operative period in patients receiving dexamethasone compared to controls was the only adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic dexamethasone 8-10mg administered intravenously before induction of anesthesia should be recommended as a safe and effective strategy for reducing the incidence of PONV, the need for rescue anti-emetics, post-operative pain, and the need for rescue analgesia in thyroidectomy patients, except those that are pregnant, have diabetes mellitus, hyperglycemia, or contraindications for dexamethasone. More high quality trials are warranted to define the benefits and risks of prophylactic dexamethasone in potential patients with a high risk for PONV.

Impact of perioperative dexamethasone on postoperative analgesia and side-effects: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of a single perioperative dose of dexamethasone are unclear. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the impact of a single i.v. dose of dexamethasone on postoperative pain and explore adverse events associated with this treatment.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register were searched for randomized, controlled studies that compared dexamethasone vs placebo or an antiemetic in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia and reported pain outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-five studies involving 5796 patients receiving dexamethasone 1.25-20 mg were included. Patients receiving dexamethasone had lower pain scores at 2 h {mean difference (MD) -0.49 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.83, -0.15]} and 24 h [MD -0.48 (95% CI: -0.62, -0.35)] after surgery. Dexamethasone-treated patients used less opioids at 2 h [MD -0.87 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -1.40 to -0.33)] and 24 h [MD -2.33 mg morphine equivalents (95% CI: -4.39, -0.26)], required less rescue analgesia for intolerable pain [relative risk 0.80 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.93)], had longer time to first dose of analgesic [MD 12.06 min (95% CI: 0.80, 23.32)], and shorter stays in the post-anaesthesia care unit [MD -5.32 min (95% CI: -10.49 to -0.15)]. There was no dose-response with regard to the opioid-sparing effect. There was no increase in infection or delayed wound healing with dexamethasone, but blood glucose levels were higher at 24 h [MD 0.39 mmol litre(-1) (95% CI: 0.04, 0.74)].

CONCLUSIONS

A single i.v. perioperative dose of dexamethasone had small but statistically significant analgesic benefits.

Nausea and vomiting after surgery under general anesthesia: an evidence-based review concerning risk assessment, prevention, and treatment

BACKGROUND

The German-language recommendations for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) have been revised by an expert committee. Major aspects of this revision are presented here in the form of an evidence-based review article.

METHODS

The literature was systematically reviewed with the goal of revising the existing recommendations. New evidence-based recommendations for the management of PONV were developed, approved by consensus, and graded according to the scheme of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).

RESULTS

The relevant risk factors for PONV include female sex, nonsmoker status, prior history of PONV, motion sickness, use of opioids during and after surgery, use of inhalational anesthetics and nitrous oxide, and the duration of anesthesia. PONV scoring systems provide a rough assessment of risk that can serve as the basis for a risk-adapted approach. Risk-adapted prophylaxis, however, has not been shown to provide any greater benefit than fixed (combination) prophylaxis, and PONV risk scores have inherent limitations; thus, fixed prophylaxis may be advantageous. Whichever of these two approaches to manage PONV is chosen, high-risk patients must be given multimodal prophylaxis, involving both the avoidance of known risk factors and the application of multiple validated and effective antiemetic interventions. PONV should be treated as soon as it arises, to minimize patient discomfort, the risk of medical complications, and the costs involved.

CONCLUSION

PONV lowers patient satisfaction but is treatable. The effective, evidence-based measures of preventing and treating it should be implemented in routine practice.

Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

The physiology, risk factors, and prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are discussed.

SUMMARY

Factors to consider when determining a patient's risk for PONV include sex, history of PONV, history of motion sickness, smoking status, duration of anesthesia, use of opioids, and type of surgery. Receptors that, when activated, can cause nausea or vomiting or both include dopamine type 2, serotonin type 3, histamine type 1, and muscarinic cholinergic type 1 receptors. Patients at moderate to high risk for PONV benefit from the administration of a prophylactic antiemetic agent that blocks one or more of these receptors. Effective agents include transdermal scopolamine, prochlorperazine, promethazine, droperidol, ondansetron, dolasetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone. In high-risk patients, combining two or more antiemetics with different mechanisms of action has been shown to be more effective than using a single agent. In addition to administering a prophylactic antiemetic, it is important to reduce the patient's risk by considering regional anesthesia, considering inducing and maintaining general anesthesia with propofol, ensuring good intravenous hydration, avoiding hypotension, and providing effective analgesia. If PONV occurs in the immediate postoperative period, it is best treated with an antiemetic agent from a pharmacologic class different from that of the prophylactic agent.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic antiemetic therapy for PONV is effective, but combinations of agents may be necessary for high-risk patients. Nonpharmacologic strategies are also important.