A comparative study of attenuation of propofol-induced pain by lignocaine, ondansetron, and ramosetron

Comparison of Intravenous Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Preventing Propofol-Induced Pain During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study

Background Propofol is the most common induction agent used in current anesthesia practice. Patients receiving propofol injections commonly experience varying degrees of pain, creating an unpleasant anesthesia experience. Methods Seventy-two patients, aged between 18 and 70, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group D received 8 mg of dexamethasone, and Group O received 8 mg of ondansetron intravenously before induction. After five seconds, mid-arm venous occlusion was applied for one minute using a tourniquet. Propofol (0.5 mg/kg) was administered intravenously over five seconds, and patients rated the injection pain over the next 15 seconds. The primary outcome was pain intensity using the Verbal Rating Scale during propofol injection. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Normally distributed variables were compared using the Student's t-test, non-normally distributed variables using the Mann-Whitney U-test, and qualitative data using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance for the study was set at p < 0.05. Results In Group D, 30 out of 36 patients (83.3%) experienced no pain, while four patients (11.1%) reported mild pain, two patients (5.6%) reported moderate pain, and no patients (0.0%) reported severe pain. In contrast, in Group O, only 15 out of 36 patients (41.6%) experienced no pain, with 12 patients (33.3%) experiencing mild pain, seven patients (19.4%) experiencing moderate pain, and two patients (5.6%) experiencing severe pain. Overall, six out of 36 patients in Group D (16.7%) experienced some level of pain, compared to 21 out of 36 patients in Group O (58.3%), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Regarding postoperative nausea, 16 out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (44.44%) experienced nausea, whereas 23 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (63.88%) reported this symptom, with the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.0372). Additionally, postoperative vomiting occurred in nine out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (25%), compared to 18 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (50%), with this difference also reaching statistical significance (p= 0.026). Conclusions Intravenous dexamethasone before propofol administration reduces injection pain and PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy more effectively as compared to ondansetron.

Effect of Ondansetron on Postoperative Pain and Vomiting after Acute Appendicitis Surgery: A Placebo-Controlled Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

Common postoperative complications following surgery, particularly acute appendicitis surgery, include postoperative pain and vomiting, which can cause discomfort and delay recovery time.

Methods

A randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted with 80 cases of acute appendicitis of American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II and aged 18-60 y/o scheduled for appendectomy under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into two equal groups: group A received 4 mg of ondansetron IV (2 ml) and group B received 2 ml of normal slain IV (placebo). Pain according to VAS, nausea and vomiting according to clinical symptoms, shivering and sedation according to the Bedside Shivering Assessment Scale (BSAS), and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) at 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery were evaluated and compared between the groups.

Results

There was a significant decline in the severity of pain only at 2 hours after surgery between the ondansetron and control groups (5.3 ± 1.0 vs. 6.0 ± 1.0; p=0.01), not showing a difference between the groups at 6, 12, and 24 hours after appendectomy. Postoperative nausea and vomiting at 2 (5% vs. 25%; p=0.03) and 6 (7.5% vs. 27.5%; p=0.04) hours after appendectomy in the ondansetron group. At different times, the ondansetron and control groups did not differ in terms of pethidine consumption or sedation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study found that ondansetron was effective in reducing postoperative vomiting after acute appendicitis surgery. However, it did not show a clinically significant effect on postoperative pain. This trial is registered with IRCT20230722058883N1.

Effect of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for reducing propofol injection pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Propofol is the most commonly used intravenous anesthetic medication and is most commonly associated with post-operative pain. Several drugs are investigated to reduce post-operative pain caused by propofol injection. Ondansetron is a potent anti-emetic drug showing promising results as an analgesic. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of ondansetron to placebo and lidocaine in reducing post-operative pain caused by propofol injection.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till May 2022. We conducted a meta-analysis using RevMan software version 5.4, and we assessed the quality of included RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

In our study, we included 23 RCTs with 2957 participants. Compared to placebo, ondansetron significantly increased the rate of no pain [risk ratio (RR) = 2.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.39-4.01)], and reduced moderate [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.30-0.52)] and severe pain [RR = 0.34, 95% CI (0.24-0.50)]. Furthermore, ondansetron significantly reduced PONV [RR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.58, 0.91)]. On the other hand, ondansetron showed an inferior efficacy to lidocaine regarding the incidence of no, moderate, and severe pain.

CONCLUSION

Ondansetron is effective in reducing post-operative propofol-induced pain. However, lidocaine is more effective than it.

The intraperitoneal ondansetron for postoperative pain management following laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A proof-of-concept, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy remains a major challenge. Ondansetron blocks sodium channels and may have local anesthetic properties.

AIMS

To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.

RESULTS

The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (r_s =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Impact of Ondansetron on Withdrawal Signs, Fentanyl Requirement and Pain Relief in Opioid-addicted Patients under General Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Serotonin 5-HT3 receptor antagonists such as ondansetron have been investigated to attenuate opioid withdrawal signs in studies.

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, we designed a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial to evaluate this effect on opioid-addicted patients who were admitted to the orthopedic department for surgery due to bone fractures.

METHODS

Male adults who were addicted to opioids, aged 18 to 79 years were enrolled (n=96) and randomized into intravenous doses (4 & 8 mg) of ondansetron (n=32) and placebo (n=32). The vital signs, withdrawal symptoms and the frequency requirement of fentanyl were recorded during anesthesia, and opioid (pethidine) analgesic was received during the recovery period. Outcome parameters were analyzed for reduction of withdrawal symptoms in addicted adults.

RESULTS

We indicated that ondansetron demonstrated significant differences with few vital outcomes including systolic blood pressure (SBP) 20 (SBP3) and 50 min (SBP4) after injection of ondansetron during the period of surgery. Ondansetron could also significantly reduce the frequency requirement of fentanyl at 20 min (dose 3) in general anesthesia. Furthermore, requirement for further administration of opioid analgesic drugs such as pethidine was significantly reduced in the ondansetron groups. Objective opioid withdrawal scale (OOWS) results indicated that few clinical parameters including tremor, hot and cold flushes and anxiety were significantly attenuated in addicted patients who received ondansetron.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated supporting evidence for the beneficial treatment of ondansetron for the control of withdrawal symptoms and pain in addicted patients, and more clinical studies are suggested in this regard.

The Effect of 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor Antagonist in Preventing Pain/Limb Shrinkage Reaction Associated with Rocuronium Injection

Objectives

To evaluate the effect and safety of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) receptor antagonist in alleviating the pain of patients under general anesthesia induced by rocuronium injection and preemptive analgesia.

Methods

Meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.1 software by electronically retrieving the databases of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, and CNKI and collecting the published random control tests (RCTs) where 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist was used to alleviate the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection.

Results

Seven RTCs, including 556 patients, were included. The results of meta-analysis showed the following. (1) Compared to the control group, 5-HT receptor antagonist could prevent the total pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection [RR=0.62, 95% CI (0.54, 0.71), P<0.00001] and reduce the incidence rate of mild and moderate pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection [RR=0.46, 95% CI (0.33, 0.63), P<0.00001; RR=0.18, 95% CI (0.11, 0.31), P<0.000 01]. (2) Compared to the lidocaine group, the incidence rate was higher in preventing the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection by 5-HT receptor antagonist, which was statistically significant [RR=1.33, 95% CI (1.05, 1.68), P=0.02].

Conclusion

5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist may be effective in preventing the pain/limb shrinkage reaction associated with rocuronium injection.

Comparison of different doses of intravenous lignocaine on etomidate-induced myoclonus: A prospective randomised and placebo-controlled study

Background and Aims

Etomidate-induced myoclonus (EM) is observed in 50%-80% of unpremedicated patients. Low-dose lignocaine has been shown to attenuate but not abolish the EM. The aim of this prospective, randomised controlled study was to compare the different doses of lignocaine on the incidence and severity of EM.

Methods

Two hundred adult patients were randomly assigned into four groups to receive saline placebo (Group I) or IV lignocaine 0.5 mg/kg (Group II), 1 mg/kg (Group III) or 1.5 mg/kg (Group IV) 2 min before injection etomidate 0.3 mg/kg IV. The patients were assessed for the EM using a four-point intensity scoring system. Our primary outcome was the incidence of myoclonus at 2 min (EM2). The incidence of myoclonus at 1 min (EM1) and severity of myoclonus constituted the secondary outcomes. ANOVA and Pearson Chi-square test were used for statistical analysis and P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The incidence of EM was significantly reduced in Groups III [(EM1: 32% vs. 60%, P = 0.009); (EM2: 42% vs. 76%, P = 0.001)] and IV (EM2: 54% vs. 76%, P = 0.035) compared with Group I. Lignocaine 1 mg/kg and 1.5 mg/kg significantly reduced the incidence of severe myoclonus at 2 min (14% each) compared to Groups I (42%, P = 0.003) and II (32%, P = 0.032).

Conclusion

Lignocaine 1 mg/kg and 1.5 mg/kg IV pretreatment significantly reduces the incidence of EM, with maximum attenuation observed with 1 mg/kg.

Efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine on propofol injection pain: A randomised, double-blind, prospective study in adult cardiac surgical patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol (2, 6-di-isopropylphenol) used for the induction of anaesthesia often causes mild to severe pain or discomfort on injection. We designed this double-blind study to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine in reducing the pain of propofol injection in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery.

METHODS

A total of 165 adult patients, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, were divided into three groups: saline (group S, n = 55), lignocaine 20 mg (Group L, n = 55) and methylprednisolone 125 mg diluted into 2 ml of distilled water (Group MP, n = 55). Drugs were administered after tourniquet application and occlusion was released after 1 min and 1/4^th of the total dose of propofol (2 mg/kg) was administered at the rate of 0.5 ml/s. Pain on propofol injection was evaluated by four-point verbal rating scale. Statistical methods used included Student's t-test and Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pain was 70.9% in the saline group, 30.9% in the lignocaine group and 36.4% in the methylprednisolone group. The intensity of pain was significantly less in patients receiving methylprednisolone and lignocaine than those receiving saline (P < 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Pre-treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone was found to be as effective as lignocaine in reducing propofol injection-induced pain.