Postoperative nausea and vomiting after total thyroidectomy: sevoflurane combined with prophylactic ramosetron vs. propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia

Comparing the efficacy of aprepitant and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): A double blinded, randomised control trial in patients undergoing breast and thyroid surgeries

Background and Aims:

Aprepitant, a Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, has been evaluated in abdominal and neurosurgeries, but its effect is less clear in breast and thyroid surgeries, which are also known to be high risk for post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was done to compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron and aprepitant in women undergoing mastectomy and thyroidectomy.

Methods:

One hundred and twenty-five ASA I and II, female patients, aged between 18 and 65 years were randomly assigned into Group I (ondansetron group, n = 62) or Group II (aprepitant group, n = 63), by computer-generated random sequencing. Per protocol analysis was done to assess the incidence and severity of PONV, use of rescue antiemetics, and patient satisfaction with PONV control between the two groups, till 24 h post-surgery.

Results:

In the immediate postoperative period, 79.7% of patients in Group I and 85.2% in Group II were free of emesis (P value: 0.49). In Group I, the first episode of vomiting occurred within a median duration 90 min (IQR 2575: 45-147) postoperatively, whereas the median duration in Group II was 160 min (IQR 25-75: 26-490), with request for rescue antiemetic at 60 min in Group I (IQR 25-75: 27-360) and 147 min in Group II (IQR 25-75: 11-457).

Conclusion:

A single dose of oral aprepitant has comparable effects to injection ondansetron administered eighth hourly in preventing PONV, the severity of nausea, number of rescue antiemetics, and the time to first emetic episode in the 24-h postoperative period.

CTRI Reg No:

REF/2017/06/014637.

Does Propofol Anesthesia Lead to Less Postoperative Pain Compared With Inhalational Anesthesia?: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared propofol-based anesthesia with inhalational anesthesia. Results from several studies have shown improved postoperative analgesia after propofol anesthesia, but other studies showed contradictory results. There are no large prospective studies that compare postoperative pain after propofol versus inhalational anesthesia. This meta-analysis was designed to focus on this question.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for randomized controlled trials that compared propofol-based anesthesia with volatile agents-based anesthesia in adults undergoing surgery was conducted. Published data were pooled for the meta-analysis with Review Manager (ie, RevMan). The main outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, need for rescue analgesics, and time to first analgesia.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine clinical trials with a combined subject population of 4520 patients came within the purview of this meta-analysis. The investigated volatile agents included isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. Compared with inhalational anesthetics, the propofol use was associated with a reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest at 30 minutes, 1 hour, and 12 hours (mean difference in pain scores, 30 minutes, -0.48 [visual analog scale, 0-10]; 99% confidence interval [CI], -1.07 to 0.12, P = 0.04) and reduced morphine-equivalent consumption 0 to 24 hours postoperatively (mean difference in morphine-equivalent consumption, -2.68 mg; 99% CI, -6.17 to 0.82; P = 0.05). Fewer patients required postoperative rescue analgesics during 0 to 24 hours after surgery under propofol anesthesia (risk ratio, 0.87; 99% CI, 0.74-1.03; P = 0.04). In addition, patients anesthetized with propofol required administration of postoperative analgesia later than those anesthetized with volatiles (mean difference in time to first analgesic administration, 6.12 minutes; 99% CI, 0.02-12.21; P = 0.01). Considering that Z statistic in RevMan 5.3 does not perform optimally in highly heterogeneous samples among groups or many combinations of groups with small sample sizes, a P value of <.01 was considered statistically significant. On the basis of this threshold, none of the aforementioned results are statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The current results are affected by substantial heterogeneity, which makes it difficult to predict significant differences in postoperative pain control between propofol anesthesia and inhalational anesthesia. Further large, randomized controlled trials are needed to corroborate these results and to detect differences (if any) between propofol and inhalational anesthesia on postoperative pain.

The Effect of Sevoflurane Plus Propofol on Pain and Complications after Laminectomy: A Randomized Double Blind Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Pain is one of the most important reasons for the patients concern after surgery. The perfect sedative should have properties like rapid onset, least pain and adverse effects.

AIM

To assess the effect of sevoflurane plus propofol on postoperative pain, haemodynamic stability and complication after lumbar disc surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a randomized double- blind clinical trial. A total of 75 patients scheduled for elective lumbar disc surgery with simple random sampling design received sevoflurane (n=25, induced with Thiopentone and maintained with sevoflurane), propofol (n=25, induced and maintained with propofol) and sevoflurane plus propofol (n=25, induced with propofol and maintained with sevoflurane). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was used to determine the intensity of postoperative pain. Complications after surgery and haemodynamic changes during surgery were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean pain intensity and morphine consumption in the sevoflurane plus propofol group was lower compared to the propofol and sevoflurane groups at different intervals (p<0.001). The prevalence of shivering, nausea and vomiting in the sevoflurane plus propofol group was 24%, 28%, 28% respectively vs sevoflurane group 32%, 60%, 48% respectively and propofol group 32%, 16%, 12% respectively with p-value > 0.05, <0.001, <0.05 respectively. The mean blood pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the sevoflurane plus propofol group compared to the propofol and sevoflurane groups (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

According to the effect on pain and complications after lumbar disc surgery sevoflurane plus propofol can be regarded as safe and alternative drug in general anaesthesia for these patients.

Effect of total intravenous anaesthesia and prophylactic ramosetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy: A prospective, randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of combined prophylactic ramosetron and total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia without prophylactic antiemetics, in female patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

METHODS

Female patients were randomized between the sevoflurane group (anaesthesia maintained with sevoflurane) or TIVA + ramosetron group (TIVAR; 0.3 mg ramosetron just before anaesthesia induction, remifentanil and propofol anaesthesia). Incidence and severity of PONV and use of rescue antiemetics were recorded during the first 24 h after surgery.

RESULTS

In the early postoperative period (0-6 h), the incidence of PONV, severe emesis and rescue antiemetic use were significantly lower in the TIVAR group (n = 36) than in the sevoflurane group (n = 36). In the late postoperative period (6-24 h), the incidence of severe emesis was significantly lower in the TIVAR group than in the sevoflurane group.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of TIVA and prophylactic ramosetron decreases early PONV and late postoperative severe emesis compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia.