Postoperative nausea and vomiting

Efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block on postoperative nausea and vomiting: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common postoperative complication, and Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block can provide effective analgesia for surgical operation. However, but there is not enough evidence to prove its advantage for nausea and vomiting. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of TAP block on PONV.

METHODS

Two independent researchers conducted searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We used Review Manager software for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, twenty-six trials with 1981 patients were examined. The results showed that TAP block reduced postoperative nausea (Risk Difference (RD) = -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.15 to -0.05) compared with no TAP block. TAP block reduced the dose of fentanyl (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) = -1.17, 95% CI: -2.07 to -0.26) and morphine (SMD = -1.12, 95% CI: -2.10 to -0.13) compared with no TAP block, when the timing of administration was before surgery (RD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.07). TAP block reduced postoperative nausea when the ropivacaine dosage is ≤ 100 mg (RD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.06), bupivacaine dosage ≥ 100 mg ( RD = -0.08, 95% CI: -0.13 to -0.03), and when the ropivacaine concentration was ≤ 0.375% (RD = -0.11, 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.04). TAP block significantly reduced the incidence of nausea when the types of opioid drugs in PCA is tramadol (RD = -0.13, 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03). TAP block could reduce the VAS (SMD= -0.99, 95% CI: -1.29 to -0.70) and reduce the time of extubation (SMD = -0.71, 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.08).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis conducted in this study revealed that TAP block could reduce the incidence of PONV, and the efficacy of TAP block may be influenced by factors such as administration time, local anesthetic dosage and concentration, types of opioid drugs in PCA.

The efficacy of gastric aspiration in reducing postoperative vomiting after oral and maxillofacial surgery: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastric aspiration is applied in oral and maxillofacial procedures to reduce postoperative vomiting (POV), yet its clinical benefit remains largely uncertain. Our study aimed to determine the role of gastric aspiration in the amelioration of POV by a meta-analysis.

METHODS

With adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, global recognized databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central, were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of gastric aspiration in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The incidence and the number of episodes of POV and the frequency of rescue antiemetic use were extracted as parametric data for pooled estimation. Funnel plots and Egger's test were utilized to assess bias. The recommendation of evidence was rated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

After detailed evaluation, 5 RCTs containing 274 participants were eventually included. The results of pooled estimation indicated that gastric aspiration could not reduce the incidence of POV (risk ratio [95% CI] = 0.94 [0.73, 1.21], P = .621), the number of episodes of POV (standard mean difference [95% CI] = -0.13 [-0.45, 0.19], P = .431) or the frequency of rescue antiemetic use (RR [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.49, 1.52], P = .609). No publication bias was detected by the funnel plot and Egger test. The overall recommendation of evidence was rated low regarding each outcome.

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, gastric aspiration is not recommended for oral and maxillofacial surgery. Meanwhile, more large-scale high-quality RCTs are needed.

Body Mass Index Affects Delayed Chemotherapy-induced Vomiting in Pediatric Malignancy Patients

BACKGROUND

Delayed chemotherapy-induced vomiting (DCIV) is a problem for children undergoing chemotherapy for malignant tumors. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between body mass index (BMI) and DCIV in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Clinical data were collected from patients with malignancies who underwent chemotherapy at our center. Independent risk factors for DCIV derived by logistic regression. The Youden Index, which calculates BMI, divides patients into a high-risk group and a low-risk group, and the difference in DCIV between the two groups was analyzed. The relationship between BMI and DCIV was assessed by calculating the frequency of vomiting episodes and the severity of vomiting.

RESULTS

A total of 283 patients were included in this cohort study. BMI (odds ratio [OR]: 0.811; 95% CI: 0.699-0.941), age (OR: 1.014; 95% CI: 1.006-1.021), and emetogenic grade (OR: 2.858, 95% CI: 1.749-4.671) were independent risk factors for the development of DCIV in children. Patients in the high-risk group experienced vomiting more frequently and with greater severity than those in the low-risk group ( P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

BMI in children with malignancy is associated with DCIV, and the incidence of DCIV decreases as BMI increases. Physicians may be able to arrange a more elaborate antiemetic prevention regimen based on the patient's BMI.

Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Novel Candidate Variants Associated with Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Considerable individual differences are widely observed in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify potential candidate single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that contribute to PONV by utilizing whole-genome genotyping arrays with more than 950,000 markers. The subjects were 806 patients who provided written informed consent and underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia with propofol or desflurane. The GWAS showed that two SNPs, rs2776262 and rs140703637, in the LOC100506403 and CNTN5 gene regions, respectively, were significantly associated with the frequency of nausea. In another GWAS conducted only on patients who received propofol, rs7212072 and rs12444143 SNPs in the SHISA6 and RBFOX1 gene regions, respectively, were significantly associated with the frequency of nausea as well as the rs2776262 SNP, and the rs45574836 and rs1752136 SNPs in the ATP8B3 and LOC105370198 gene regions, respectively, were significantly associated with vomiting. Among these SNPs, clinical and SNP data were available for the rs45574836 SNP in independent subjects who underwent laparoscopic gynecological surgery, and the association was replicated in these subjects. These results indicate that these SNPs could serve as markers that predict the vulnerability to PONV. Our findings may provide valuable information for achieving satisfactory prophylactic treatment for PONV.

Esketamine-based opioid-free anaesthesia alleviates postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

Although opioids are commonly prescribed in clinical anaesthesia, the significant side effects attributed to their overuse are raising increasing concerns. One way to reduce perioperative opioid consumption is to apply opioid-reduced anaesthesia (ORA) and even opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA), which involves regional techniques, neuraxial anaesthesia, nonopioid analgesics or combined use. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the application of OFA by using esketamine in intraoperative analgesia could minimize the side effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as other short-term side effects related to anaesthesia.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicentre trial. A total of 278 patients were enrolled; participants were nonsmoking female patients aged 18-50 years and scheduled for laparoscopic appendectomy or cholecystectomy, ASA at I-III, with no serious physical or mental diseases. Both groups received usual perioperative care except for the analgesic medication of either esketamine or sufentanil. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV 3 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included recovery status, pain, sedation level and overall recovery, delirium and cognition, anxiety and depression and total consumption of analgesic agents.

DISCUSSION

This trial may show that the synergy of esketamine and propofol anaesthesia reduces PONV as well as other short-term adverse events, thereby providing a better safety and satisfaction profile of ERAS for laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100047169. Registered on June 9, 2021.

Combination of dexamethasone and ondansetron in prophylaxis nausea and vomiting in gynecological operation

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting occur in about 20-30% of women; however, some reports have estimated the rate at 70% in at-risk individuals. Gynecological and obstetrical operations are among the most frequent types of surgeries to be associated with nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Ondansetron and dexamethasone have been compared in a variety of studies for postoperative prophylaxis.

AIM OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted in order to compare the efficacy and safety of dexamethasone and ondansetron, alone or in combination, for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a sample of Iraqi women undergoing gynecological surgeries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted in Al-Diwaniyah Province, a region belonging to the Mid-Euphrates sector of Iraq, at the Child and Maternity Teaching Hospital. The study started in June 2021 and the work with the research was accomplished in September 2022. The study included a total of 100 women undergoing different gynecological surgeries such as ovarian cystectomy, oophorectomy, ectopic pregnancy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and myomectomy. All participants involved in the study were categorized randomly into four groups, namely, dexamethasone, ondansetron, combined, and placebo groups.

RESULTS

The rates of nausea in the different groups were analyzed. The rates of nausea in dexamethasone, ondansetron, and combined groups revealed a significant decrease compared with that of placebo group (P < 0.05), and the rate was significantly lower in combined group when compared with dexamethasone and ondansetron groups (P < 0.05). The rate of nausea in combined group was significantly lower than that of dexamethasone and ondansetron groups. The rate of vomiting in combined group was significantly lower than that of placebo group and less than that of the dexamethasone group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on our study and previous reports, both dexamethasone and ondansetron are efficient and safe in preventing nausea and vomiting in gynecological operations; however, combination of both provides the best results.

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.

Effects of perioperative dextrose infusion on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically examine the literature and assess the effects of perioperative dextrose infusion on the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients following laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the prevention of PONV with perioperative intravenous dextrose. Studies listed in PUBMED, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases published up to December 2020 were identified. Data were extracted and analyzed independently using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity.

Results

Six RCTs involving 526 patients were included. Our results showed that perioperative dextrose infusion not only reduced the incidence of PONV (risk ratio [RR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39–0.95; I² = 59%) but also decreased the requirement for antiemetics compared with the control (RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42–0.66; I² = 32%). Furthermore, perioperative glucose infusion did not increase blood glucose levels compared with the control (mean difference [95% CI] = 74.55 [−20.64 to 169.73] mg/dL; I² = 100%).

Conclusion

Our study reveals that perioperative dextrose infusion may reduce the risk of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. However, additional population-based RCTs are needed to confirm this finding.

An analysis of the management and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting significantly increases recovery time, reduces patient satisfaction, and increases time to discharge. Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting highlight effective methods for prophylaxis and treatment. Implications of adherence to these guidelines include both improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the incidence, contributing factors, and current prescribing practices for prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

METHODS

Electronic medical records were assessed for adult patients who had an elective gastrointestinal or gynaecologic surgical procedure over a one-year period. Patient demographics and perioperative data were collected to assess risk factors and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The appropriateness of prophylaxis and treatment was assessed according to current guidelines.

RESULTS

The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was consistent with previously noted findings. The average time spent under anaesthesia was significantly higher in patients who experienced postoperative nausea and vomiting. Appropriate evidence-based rescue therapy was administered in a minority of the cohort experiencing postoperative nausea and vomiting.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial opportunity for provider education and adherence to best prescribing practices. Enhanced adherence to evidence-based rescue therapy prescribing may improve patient outcomes and satisfaction.

Effect of dexamethasone gargle, intravenous dexamethasone, and their combination on postoperative sore throat: a randomized controlled trial

Background

Postoperative sore throat (POST) is a complication that decreases patient satisfaction and increases postoperative complaints. The present study was conducted to investigate effects of gargling with dexamethasone, intravenous dexamethasone injection and the combination of the two on the incidence and severity of POST.

Methods

Study participants were 96 patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, randomly allocated into three groups. Group G gargled with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and were infused intravenous 0.9% normal saline before general anesthesia; group I gargled with 0.9% normal saline and were infused intravenous 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone; group GI gargled with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and were infused intravenous 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone. The incidence and severity of POST, hoarseness and cough were evaluated and recorded at 1, 6, and 24 h after the surgery.

Results

There were no significant differences in the total incidence of POST up to 24 postoperative hours among Group G, Group I and Group GI (P = 0.367, Group G incidence = 34.38%, [95% confidence interval, 95% CI = 17.92–50.83], Group I incidence = 18.75%, [95% CI = 5.23–32.27], Group GI incidence = 28.13%, [95% CI = 12.55–43.70]). The other outcomes were comparable among the groups.

Conclusions

In patients who had undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, gargling with 0.05% dexamethasone solution demonstrated the same POST prevention effect as intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone. The incidence and severity of POST were not significantly different between the combination of gargling with 0.05% dexamethasone solution and intravenous injection of 0.1 mg/kg dexamethasone and use of each of the preventive methods alone.

Effect of Body Mass Index on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Propensity Analysis

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is controversial, and few studies have focused on their relationship. We investigated the effects of BMI on PONV, taking into account other PONV risk factors. We analyzed adults over the age of 18 years who received general anesthesia between 2015 and 2019, using propensity score matching. Before propensity score matching, odds ratios (ORs) for PONV were lower for overweight (OR, 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87–0.96; p < 0.0001) or obese patients (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71–0.84; p < 0.0001) than for normal-BMI patients. After matching, the ORs for PONV of overweight (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80–0.98; p = 0.016) and obese patients (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63–0.79; p < 0.0001) were low. However, the ORs of underweight patients did not differ from those of normal-BMI patients, irrespective of matching. Therefore, the incidence of PONV may be lower among adults with a higher-than-normal BMI.

Comparison of Sufentanil- and Fentanyl-based Intravenous Patient-controlled Analgesia on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Laparoscopic Nephrectomy: A Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized-controlled Trial

Background: The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains high. The effects of sufentanil for PONV is not firmly confirmed. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of sufentanil- and fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) on the incidence of PONV after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Methods: Eighty-six patients were randomly allocated to receive either the sufentanil (n =43) or fentanyl (n =43). IV-PCA was prepared using either sufentanil 3 µg/kg or fentanyl 20 µg/kg, ramosetron 0.3 mg, and ketorolac 120 mg. The primary outcome of was the incidence of PONV during 24 h after post anesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge. The secondary outcomes were the modified Rhodes index and patient satisfaction scores at 24 h after PACU discharge, need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, need for additional analgesics, and cumulative consumption of IV-PCA Results: The incidence of PONV was comparable between the sufentanil and fentanyl groups (64.3% vs. 65%, p = 0.946; respectively). The number of patients who required antiemetics (p = 0.946) and the modified Rhodes index at 24 h after post-anesthesia care unit discharge (p = 0.668) were also comparable in both groups. No significant differences were found in the secondary outcomes, including the analgesic profiles and adverse events between the groups. Conclusions: In conclusion, sufentanil- and fentanyl-based IV-PCA showed similar incidence of PONV with comparable analgesic effects after laparoscopic nephrectomy. Based on these results, we suggest that sufentanil and fentanyl may provide comparable effects for IV-PCA after laparoscopic nephrectomy.

Pharmacogenetics of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains one of the most common adverse effects of anesthesia, affecting up to 80% of high-risk patients within 24 hours after surgery. Patient-related factors, surgical procedure, and perioperative medications such as opioids determine a patient's risk for PONV. To prevent and manage PONV, ondansetron, a 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT₃) receptor antagonist, is frequently administered. Ondansetron is metabolized predominantly by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6) enzymes, encoded by the CYP2D6 gene, whereas most of the effects of opioids are exerted at the opioid mu-1 receptor, encoded by the OPRM1 gene. Genetic polymorphisms of the CYP2D6 and OPRM1 genes may have a role in interindividual variation in the occurrence of PONV. Specifically, the occurrence of the G-allele produced by the OPRM1 A118G appears to be protective against PONV, whereas CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolism increases the risk for PONV. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines provide CYP2D6-guided therapeutic recommendations for ondansetron. However, further studies are needed to investigate the role of genetic polymorphism in the occurrence of PONV and response to antiemetics.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing colorectal surgery within an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol: comparison of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) provide optimal perioperative care for surgical patients. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common after colorectal surgery (CRS). We aim to compare the efficacy of aprepitant to a cost-effective alternative, perphenazine, as components of triple antiemetic prophylaxis in ERP patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ERP CRS at a single institution from July 2015 to July 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Only subjects who received aprepitant (Group 1) or perphenazine (Group 2) preoperatively for PONV prophylaxis were included. Patient characteristics, simplified Apfel PONV scores, perioperative medications, and PONV incidence were compared between the groups. PONV was defined as the need for rescue antiemetics on postoperative days (POD) 0-5.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-seven patients underwent CRS of which 498 met the inclusion criteria. Two hundred thirty-one (46.4%) received aprepitant and 267 (53.6%) received perphenazine. The incidence of early PONV (POD 0-1) was comparable between the two groups: 44.2% in Group 1 and 44.6% in Group 2 (P = 0.926). Late PONV (POD 2-5) occurred less often in Group 1 than Group 2, respectively (35.9% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.027). After matching the groups for preoperative, procedural, and anesthesia characteristics (164 pairs), no difference in early or late PONV could be demonstrated between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PONV remains high despite most patients receiving three prophylactic antiemetic medications. Perphenazine can be considered a cost-effective alternative to oral aprepitant for prophylaxis of PONV in patients undergoing CRS within an ERP.

Validation of the xylazine/ketamine anesthesia test as a predictor of the emetic potential of pharmacological compounds in rats

The xylazine/ketamine anesthesia test is widely used as a predictor of the emetic potential of pharmacological compounds in rats. An emetic reflex is usually triggered by the emetic center, which is populated with many different chemoreceptors. Inhibition of the α2 adrenergic receptor (α2 receptor) is involved in the initiation of the emetic reflex, and this is the key mechanism behind the xylazine/ketamine anesthesia test. In this study, we attempt to validate this test as a predictor of the emetic potential of pharmacological compounds. Furthermore, it was investigated whether an anti-emetic potential of pharmacological compounds could be assessed within this test as well. Rats were anesthetized with a combination of low doses of ketamine and xylazine, and subsequently treated with PDE4 inhibitor rolipram, α2 receptor antagonist yohimbine, α2 receptor agonist clonidine, tricyclic antidepressant imipramine, D2-receptor antagonist haloperidol, or 5-HT3 receptor antagonist (and anti-emetic drug) ondansetron. We were able to successfully reproduce the reduction in anesthesia time after rolipram or yohimbine treatment, as found in previous studies and has been suggested to be indicative of emetic properties of these treatments is humans. Furthermore, clonidine shortened anesthesia duration whereas imipramine and haloperidol lengthened anesthesia duration. Ondansetron was unable to rescue the reduction in duration of anesthesia induced by either rolipram or yohimbine. Altogether, the xylazine/ketamine anesthesia test is a reliable measure for α2 receptor antagonism. However, it may not be appropriate to assess emesis independent of this mechanism.

The pharmacogenetics of medications used in general anesthesia

General anesthesia is a state of unconsciousness, amnesia, analgesia and akinesia induced by drugs including opioids, hypnotic-sedative agents, muscle relaxants and antiemetics. Clinical and genetic factors are reported to influence the efficacy and side effects of these agents. Based on the evidence, clinical action is needed to improve clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the latest knowledge with regards to the pharmacogenetics of anesthetics and general anesthesia related complications.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting with Plastic Surgery: A Practical Advisory to Etiology, Impact, and Treatment

Ambulatory surgery is common in plastic surgery, where many aesthetic and reconstructive procedures can be performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers, or office-based surgery facilities. Outpatient surgery offers advantages to both the patient and the surgeon by increasing accessibility, flexibility, and convenience; lowering cost; and maintaining high-quality care. To optimize a patient's experience and comfort, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) should be prevented. However, in those patients who develop PONV, it must be appropriately managed and treated. The incidence of PONV is variable. It is often difficult to accurately predict those patients who will develop PONV or how they will manifest symptoms. There are a variety of recommended "cocktails" for PONV prophylaxis and treatments that are potentially effective. The decision regarding the type of treatment given is often more related to provider preference and determination of side-effect profile, rather than targeted to specific patient characteristics, because of the absence of large volumes of reliable data to support specific practices over others. Fortunately, there are several tenets for the successful prevention and treatment of PONV we have extracted from the literature and summarize here. The following is a summary for the practicing plastic surgeon of the current state of the literature regarding PONV cause, risk factors, prophylaxis, and treatment that may serve as a guide for further study and practice management.

Patient-controlled Analgesia With Propacetamol-Fentanyl Mixture for Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in High-risk Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

This randomized trial evaluated the effect of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) based on fentanyl mixed with either propacetamol or an equivalent volume of normal saline on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in highly susceptible patients undergoing spinal surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred eight nonsmoking female patients were randomly and evenly allocated to receive IV-PCA with either propacetamol (4 g) or normal saline mixed to fentanyl (20 μg/kg). Primary study outcome was PONV incidence at 24 hours postsurgery. Secondary outcomes were nausea severity, pain intensity (100-mm visual analog scale), use of rescue antiemetics and analgesics, patient satisfaction, and adverse events at 6, 12, and 24 hours postsurgery.

RESULTS

Postsurgery, the propacetamol versus normal saline group had lower PONV incidence at 24 hours (41% vs. 66%, P=0.011); pain intensity at rest and rescue analgesic requirements at 6 to 12 hours (30±15 vs. 41±19, P=0.008; and 25% vs. 49%, P=0.036, respectively) and at 12 to 24 hours (25±15 vs. 35±17, P=0.008; and 19% vs. 42%, P=0.044, respectively); and higher patient satisfaction score (6.4±1.4 vs. 5.7±1.8, P=0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing spinal surgery and at risk of developing PONV, continuous IV-PCA based on propacetamol mixed to fentanyl, relative to fentanyl alone, effectively reduced the incidence of PONV, pain intensity at rest, and additional use of rescue analgesics with higher patient satisfaction.

Factors Affecting Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Surgical Patients

PURPOSE

This study was to identify factors affecting postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and to investigate the incidence of PONV for the first 24 hours after operation.

DESIGN

The prospective research was performed in an 1,100-bed university hospital, from April to December, 2011. The sample consisted of 609 patients with elective surgery.

METHODS

Factors affecting PONV were identified by multiple logistic regression.

FINDINGS

Incidence of PONV was 27.1% for the first postoperative 24 hours. Insertion of nasogastric tube (OR, 4.54, P = .002), history of PONV (OR, 3.24, P < .001), general anesthesia (OR, 2.76, P = .002), history of motion sickness (OR, 2.33, P < .001), and female sex (OR, 2.05, P = .004) were high risk factors of PONV. The nonadministration of antiemetics during operation (OR, 1.70, P = .014) and nonuse of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (OR, 1.54, P = .038) increased PONV during the first postoperative 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients of female gender, history of motion sickness and PONV, general anesthesia, and nasogastric insertion are more likely to experience PONV.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: A simple yet complex problem

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the complex and significant problems in anesthesia practice, with growing trend toward ambulatory and day care surgeries. This review focuses on pathophysiology, pharmacological prophylaxis, and rescue therapy for PONV. We searched the Medline and PubMed database for articles published in English from 1991 to 2014 while writing this review using “postoperative nausea and vomiting, PONV, nausea-vomiting, PONV prophylaxis, and rescue” as keywords. PONV is influenced by multiple factors which are related to the patient, surgery, and pre-, intra-, and post-operative anesthesia factors. The risk of PONV can be assessed using a scoring system such as Apfel simplified scoring system which is based on four independent risk predictors. PONV prophylaxis is administered to patients with medium and high risks based on this scoring system. Newer drugs such as neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) are used along with serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3) receptor antagonist, corticosteroids, anticholinergics, antihistaminics, and butyrophenones for PONV prophylaxis. Combination of drugs from different classes with different mechanism of action are administered for optimized efficacy in adults with moderate risk for PONV. Multimodal approach with combination of pharmacological and nonpharmacological prophylaxis along with interventions that reduce baseline risk is employed in patients with high PONV risk.

Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of general anesthesia. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using the most recently published randomized controlled clinical studies.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron and ondansetron. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

A total of 898 patients from nine selected studies were treated with antiemetics after surgery, including 450 patients who received ondansetron 4 mg and 448 patients who received ramosetron 0.3 mg. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevention of postoperative nausea (PON) during different time periods in the 48 hours after surgery. When comparing the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV), at various time intervals in the 24 hours after surgery, ramosetron was significantly more efficient than ondansetron: 0–6 hours (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24–0.92; P=0.03), 0–24 hours (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; P=0.05), and 6–24 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.84; P=0.008). At other time periods between 24 and 48 hours after surgery, ramosetron did not show better efficacy than ondansetron. When comparing the safety profiles of ramosetron and ondansetron, fewer side effects were recorded in the ramosetron group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91; P=0.01).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis demonstrates that ramosetron was more effective than ondansetron in the prevention of early POV (0–24 hours) with fewer recorded side effects. However, our study did not reveal any statistically significant differences in efficacy between ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PON or late POV (at 24–48 hours).