Comparison of Ondansetron versus Clonidine efficacy for prevention of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting after orthognathic surgeries: A triple blind randomized controlled trial

Association between operative position and postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is one of the most effective ways to treat morbid obesity, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the common complications after bariatric surgery. At present, the mechanism of the high incidence of PONV after weight-loss surgery has not been clearly explained, and this study aims to investigate the effect of surgical position on PONV in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

AIM

To explore the effect of the operative position during bariatric surgery on PONV.

METHODS

Data from obese patients, who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) in the authors' hospital between June 2020 and February 2022 were divided into 2 groups and retrospectively analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and the t-test were used to study the influence of operative position on PONV.

RESULTS

There were 15 cases of PONV in the supine split-leg group (incidence rate, 50%) and 11 in the supine group (incidence rate, 36.7%) (P = 0.297). The mean operative duration in the supine split-leg group was 168.23 ± 46.24 minutes and 140.60 ± 32.256 minutes in the supine group (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that operative position was not an independent risk factor for PONV (odds ratio = 1.192, 95% confidence interval: 0.376-3.778, P = 0.766).

CONCLUSION

Operative position during LSG may affect PONV; however, the difference in the incidence of PONV was not statistically significant. Operative position should be carefully considered for obese patients before surgery.

Comparative Analysis of Temperature-Responsive Hydrogel (PF 72) for Postoperative Pain After Bimaxillary Surgery: A Retro-spective Study

Bimaxillary surgery is a painful invasive procedure in plastic surgery. Pain control is typically achieved using intravenous analgesics. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of a novel temperature-responsive hydrogel, PF72, mixed with ropivacaine, as a local pain management solution when applied directly to the surgical site following orthognathic surgery. The study was conducted from October 2022 to July 2023 and included a cohort of 40 candidates for orthognathic surgery, encompassing LeFort I maxillary ostectomy and sagittal split ramus osteotomy. The participants were divided into an Injection group (n = 20), where PF72 was administered at the surgical site before the orthognathic surgery, and a Control group (n = 20), which relied solely on intravenous analgesics. Pain was evaluated at 3, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery using a numerical rating scale (NRS). The mean NRS scores at 24 h were 6.35 and 4 for the Control and Injection groups, respectively. The mean NRS scores at 72 h were 3.4 and 2.55 for the Control and Injection groups, respectively. Patients who received PF72 experienced less pain than those who received intravenous analgesics. These findings underscore the potential of PF72 as an effective alternative for enhancing pain management in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery.Level of Evidence III Therapeutic study. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Assessment of Pain Management After Orthognathic Surgery by the Administration of Montelukast: An Original Research

Introduction

Opioid may cause undue risk after surgical procedures like orthognathic surgeries. The present study was aimed to determine how the preoperative administration of oral montelukast affected the degree of postoperative discomfort following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery (BOS).

Methodology

This study included all skeletal class III subjects scheduled for BOS. The participants were split into placebo and montelukast groups at random. Every patient received a 10-mL serving of apple juice an hour prior to the surgery; however, for the intervention group, a montelukast 10 mg pill was dissolved in the juice. The same surgical team and general anesthetic guidelines were used for all procedures. The visual analog scale (VAS) was used to calculate postoperative pain at designated intervals. The significance level for the statistical analysis was determined using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.

Results

The control subjects had a higher level of pain at all the intervals than the intended drug test group. Also, the control group needed more analgesics than the test group. There was one observation made that the length of the surgery had an impact on the postoperative pain.

Conclusion

Preoperative montelukast medication may be useful in minimizing postoperative discomfort following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. More research is required for greater relevance.

Comparison of Low-Dose Promethazine and Dexamethasone against Ondansetron Monotherapy Given as Antiemetic Prophylaxis during Myomectomy Under Spinal Anesthesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis is still inadequate for a significant proportion of women undergoing myomectomy under spinal anesthesia; and it substantially decreases patient’s quality of postoperative recovery. Current protocol and practice favor the use of combination therapy like promethazine/dexamethasone for PONV prophylaxis with minimal side effects and cost advantages in low-resource climes. Methodology. Seventy American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) class I or II women aged 21–65 years scheduled for myomectomy were recruited and randomized into group A (promethazine/dexamethasone group) and group B (ondansetron group). Myomectomy was performed on each patient using spinal anesthesia. After induction of spinal anesthesia, patients in group A received intravenous promethazine 12.5 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg while group B received intravenous ondansetron 8 mg. Early (0–3 h) and late (4–24 h) PONV was assessed using the numerical scoring scale. Results. Data analysis was done using SPSS version 20. Postoperatively, there was no significant difference in the incidence of early ansd late PONV ( $p$ value >0.05) despite the higher incidents in the ondansetron group. The proportion of patients who required rescue antiemetics was more in the ondansetron group when compared with the promethazine/dexamethasone, with minimal and statistically insignificant side effects in both groups. There was significant patient satisfaction in both groups. Conclusion. The study shows that the combination of low-dose promethazine and dexamethasone is comparable to ondansetron when used as prophylaxis for PONV with cost benefits in low-resource environments.

Is Preemptive Oral Tizanidine Effective on Postoperative Pain Intensity after Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery? A Triple-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

We aimed to investigate the effect of preoperative administration of oral tizanidine on postoperative pain intensity after bimaxillary orthognathic surgery.

Methods:

All healthy skeletal class III patients who were candidates for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery were enrolled in this triple-blind randomized clinical trial. The study was carried out in the Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Qaem Hospital, Mashhad, Iran; from January 2021 to November 2021. The consecutive patients were randomly divided into tizanidine and placebo groups. One hour prior to anesthesia induction, the tizanidine group received 4 mg Tizanidine dissolved in 10 ml apple juice, whereas the placebo group received an identical glass of plain apple juice. All operations were performed by the same surgical team, under the same general anesthesia protocol. Postoperative pain was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours. For statistical analysis; the significance level was set at 0.05 using SPSS 23.

Results:

A total of 60 consecutive patients, consisting of 36 females (60%) and 24 males (40%) with an average age of 25.4 ± 6.0 were recruited. An increasing trend was noticed in the amount of perceived postoperative pain from the 3^rd till 12^th hour, and then decreased afterward. Nevertheless, the average amount of pain was significantly lower in the tizanidine compared to the placebo group, in all the evaluated time intervals (P<0.001). Moreover, there was a significantly higher requirement for postoperative opioid analgesics in the placebo compared to the tizanidine group (P=0.011).

Conclusion:

The addition of oral tizanidine was effective in reducing postoperative pain following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery. Further studies are necessary for more relevancy.

Penehyclidine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following bimaxillary orthognathic surgery: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

PURPOSE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following bimaxillary surgery.

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-four patients were randomly allocated into three groups. In the Control group, placebo (normal saline) was injected before anesthesia and infused over 48 h after surgery; in the Bolus group, 0.5 mg penehyclidine was injected before anesthesia, whereas placebo was infused after surgery; in the Infusion group, 0.25 mg penehyclidine were injected before anesthesia, another 0.25 mg penehyclidine was infused after surgery. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PONV within 72 h.

RESULTS

A total of 353 patients were included in intention-to-treat analysis. The PONV incidence was 61.0% (72/118) in the Control group, 40.2% (47/117) in the Bolus group, and 28.0% (33/118) in the Infusion group. The incidence was significantly lower in the Bolus group than in the Control group (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; adjusted P = 0.003) and in the Infusion group than in the Control group (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.33-0.63; adjusted P < 0.001); the difference between the Infusion and Bolus groups was not statistically significant (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.48-1.00; adjusted P = 0.144). Emergence agitation occurred more frequently in the Bolus group than in the Control group (36.8% [43/117] vs. 21.2% [25/118], adjusted P = 0.027), but did not differ significantly between the Infusion and Control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine was effective in preventing PONV without increasing emergence agitation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04454866.

Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PDNV) remain common and distressing complications following surgery. The routine use of opioid analgesics for perioperative pain management is a major contributing factor to both PONV and PDNV after surgery. PONV and PDNV can delay discharge from the hospital or surgicenter, delay the return to normal activities of daily living after discharge home, and increase medical costs. The high incidence of PONV and PDNV has persisted despite the introduction of many new antiemetic drugs (and more aggressive use of antiemetic prophylaxis) over the last two decades as a result of growth in minimally invasive ambulatory surgery and the increased emphasis on earlier mobilization and discharge after both minor and major surgical procedures (e.g. enhanced recovery protocols). Pharmacologic management of PONV should be tailored to the patient’s risk level using the validated PONV and PDNV risk-scoring systems to encourage cost-effective practices and minimize the potential for adverse side effects due to drug interactions in the perioperative period. A combination of prophylactic antiemetic drugs with different mechanisms of action should be administered to patients with moderate to high risk of developing PONV. In addition to utilizing prophylactic antiemetic drugs, the management of perioperative pain using opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic techniques is critically important for achieving an enhanced recovery after surgery. In conclusion, the utilization of strategies to reduce the baseline risk of PONV (e.g. adequate hydration and the use of nonpharmacologic antiemetic and opioid-sparing analgesic techniques) and implementing multimodal antiemetic and analgesic regimens will reduce the likelihood of patients developing PONV and PDNV after surgery.