A randomized study to compare the efficacy of two intravenous fluid regimens of normal saline on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting

Safety and efficacy of high thoracic epidural analgesia for chest wall surgery in young adolescents: A retrospective cohort analysis and a new standardised definition for success rate

BACKGROUND

Chest wall surgery for the correction of pectus excavatum or pectus carinatum has gained increased interest in recent years. Adequate pain treatment, respiratory physiotherapy and early ambulation are key to improving the outcomes. Although thoracic epidural analgesia is highly effective, its safety is controversial, leading to extensive scrutiny and questioning of its role.

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesise that thoracic epidural analgesia is effective and well tolerated to use in adolescents, with a high success rate and low pain scores.

DESIGN

Observational retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

All adolescent cases in a high-volume academic tertiary chest wall surgery centre between March 1993 and December 2017 were included.

PATIENTS

A total of 1117 patients aged from 12 to 19 years of age and receiving either Ravvitch, Nuss or Abramson chest wall reconstruction for pectus excavatum were identified in our institutional chest wall surgery database. After applying selection and exclusion criteria, 532 patients were included in the current analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint of this study was the safety of epidural analgesia, assessed by the incidence of acute adverse events. Secondary endpoints were block success rates using a specific novel definition, and analgesic efficacy using recorded postoperative pain scores.

RESULTS

More than 60% of patients experienced one or more adverse events. However, all events were minor and without consequences. No serious or long-term adverse events were detected. The success rate of thoracic epidural placement was 81%. Low postoperative pain scores were observed.

CONCLUSION

Thoracic epidural analgesia is an extremely effective pain control technique, with a surprisingly high number of minor adverse events but safe with regard to serious adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The local research ethics committee approved and registered this study on 16 May 2022 (registration number: S66594).

Supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloids for postoperative nausea and vomiting

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following general anaesthesia. It may be associated with patient dissatisfaction, increased costs of treatment, and unintended admission to hospital.Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration in the perioperative period may be a simple intervention to prevent PONV.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration prevents PONV in patients undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to August 2018), Embase (1947 to August 2018), and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1971 to August 2018). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing or unpublished completed studies (August 2018), handsearched three major journals (British Journal of Anaesthesia, European Journal of Anaesthesiology, and Anesthesiology; August 2018), and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of participants older than six months undergoing surgical procedures under general anaesthesia and given supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloids, defined as a volume larger than that received by a comparator group, to prevent PONV.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures described by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies (4224 participants). Participants underwent ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures, and were predominantly American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class I or II. There is one study awaiting classification and three ongoing studies. All studies took place in surgical centres, and were conducted in geographically diverse settings. Risk of bias was generally unclear across all domains.Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the cumulative risk of postoperative nausea (PON) (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.75; 18 studies; 1766 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). When the postoperative period was divided into early (first six hours postoperatively) and late (at the time point closest to or including 24 hours postoperatively) time points, the intervention reduced the risk of early PON (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.78; 20 studies; 2310 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late PON (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 17 studies; 1682 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the risk of postoperative vomiting (POV) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.63; 20 studies; 1970 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The intervention specifically reduced both early POV (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.76; 19 studies; 1998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and late POV (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 15 studies; 1403 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration probably reduces the need for pharmacologic treatment of PONV (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.76; 23 studies; 2416 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).The effect of supplemental intravenous crystalloid administration on the risk of unplanned postoperative admission to hospital is unclear (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.43; 3 studies; 235 participants; low-certainty evidence).No studies reported serious adverse events that may occur following supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration (i.e. admission to high-dependency unit, postoperative cardiac or respiratory complication, or death).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration reduces PON and POV, in ASA class I to II patients receiving general anaesthesia for ambulatory or short length of stay surgical procedures. The intervention probably also reduces the risk of pharmacologic treatment for PONV. The effect of the intervention on the risk of unintended postoperative admission to hospital is unclear. The risk of serious adverse events resulting from supplemental perioperative intravenous crystalloid administration is unknown as no studies reported this outcome. The one study awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Comparison of palonosetron and dexamethasone with ondansetron and dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in postchemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia: A randomised, double-blind, active controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients undergoing ovarian cancer surgery after chemotherapy and requiring opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) are at high-risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We aimed to assess the effect of palonosetron and dexamethasone combination for these patients for prevention of PONV.

METHODS

This study included 2 groups and 150 patients. At the time of wound closure, patients in group A received ondansetron 8 mg intravenous (IV) + dexamethasone 4 mg IV and group B received palonosetron 0.075 mg IV + dexamethasone 4 mg IV. Postoperatively for 48 hours, group A patients received ondansetron 4 mg 8 hourly IV, group B patients received normal saline 8 hourly IV in 2 cc syringe. The primary objective was the overall incidence of PONV. Independent t-test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test were used and multivariate regression analysis was done.

RESULTS

Vomiting was significantly higher in group A (37.3%) as compared with group B (21.3%) at 0-48 hours (P = 0.031). Significantly more patients in Group A had nausea as compared with group B at 90-120 minutes (30.66% vs 18.66%, P = 0.043) and 6-24 hours (32.0% vs 22.66%, P = 0.029). PCA opioid usage in microgram was significantly higher in group A at 0-24 hours (690.53 ± 332.57 vs 576.85 ± 250.79, P = 0.024) and 0-48 hours (1126.10 ± 512.18 vs 952.13 ± 353.85, P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron with dexamethasone is more effective than ondasetron with dexamethasone for prevention of PONV in post-chemotherapy ovarian cancer surgeries receiving opioid-based patient controlled analgesia.