Incidence Of Preventing Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting Research Articles

Study of penehyclidine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy under general anesthesia: a randomized, prospective, double-blind trial.

To investigate the efficacy of penehyclidine (PHC) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) under general anesthesia. In this prospective study, 219 patients who were scheduled to undergo LSG were randomly assigned to three cohorts: the control cohort (received normal saline), the infusion cohort (administered 0.25mg of PHC intravenously followed by an additional 0.25mg through an intravenous analgesia pump for 48h after LSG), and the bolus cohort (received a single intravenous dose of 0.5mg of PHC). The study outcomes included the incidence of PONV within the first 48h postoperatively, the severity and intensity of PONV, side effects and postoperative recovery outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors associated with PONV. Compared with the control cohort, both the infusion and bolus cohorts presented considerably lower incidences of PONV (61.64% vs. 12.33% vs. 38.36%, P < 0.05), as well as significantly decreased PONV severities (P < 0.05) and intensities (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in side effects and postoperative recovery outcomes among the three cohorts, with the exception of dry mouthand the administration of rescue antiemetic therapy (P < 0.05). Additionally, the Apfel risk score and PHC intervention were identified as independent risk factors associated with PONV incidence following LSG (P < 0.05). PHC effectively prevented PONV occurrence and reduced its severity in LSG patients without decreasing postoperative recovery outcomes, particularly in the infusion cohort.

Comparison of the effects of Aprepitant and Granisetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A double-blind, randomized, controlled study

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most common findings in the first 24 hours after surgery, occurring in 30% of all patients and up to 80% of high-risk patients. We compared aprepitant (a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist) and granisetron in preventing PONV in patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Methods: Sixty-one patients (aged 18-90) and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II class who underwent LC under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Our study aimed to compare the incidence of PONV between 0-6, 6-12, and 6-24 hours postoperatively and the need for additional antiemetic requirements primarily and, secondly, detecting VAS scores and additional analgesic requirements for aprepitant and granisetron. Results: Our study observed similar PONV changes in both groups at 0-6 hours. A significantly lower VDS was observed in group A at 30-60 minutes compared to group G (p=0.10). There was no significant difference between groups at other intervals until the 120th minute. Between 6 and 12 hours, Group A had a lower VDS (Verbal Descriptive Scale) than Group G, but there was no statistically significant difference (P&gt;0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding VAS scores, additional analgesic requirements, and adverse effects on patients (p&gt;0.05). Conclusion: We observed that aprepitant may be more effective than granisetron in preventing PONV and can be used safely in patients undergoing LC.

The Efficacy of Aprepitant in Preventing Post-bariatric Surgery Nausea and Vomiting: Evidence from Clinical Trials.

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). Clinical trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases, as well as clinical trials registered at clinicaltrials. gov. These trials compared aprepitant with the control or placebo groups among patients who underwent MBS. Meta-analysis was performed using StataSE 17.0 software to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) to assess the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing PONV following MBS. A total of five articles comprising six studies including 929 patients undergoing MBS were included. Meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in the incidence of PONV among patients receiving aprepitant (pooled RR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that aprepitant effectively reduced PONV incidence at 0, 6, and 12h postoperatively in patients with MBS, but did not decrease PONV occurrence at 24 and 48h postoperatively. Aprepitant demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in preventing PONV following MBS, effectively reducing patient discomfort, and improving postoperative recovery. Therefore, aprepitant should be considered a preventive measure in patients undergoing MBS to enhance patient satisfaction and recovery rates. Additionally, to maintain an effective drug concentration, aprepitant should be administered within the first 24h postoperatively. CRD 42024528154.

Comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a combination of midazolam with ramosetron and midazolam with palonosetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis in laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: A multimodal therapeutic strategy for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) benefits moderate- and high-risk surgical patients. We compared the efficacy of a combination of midazolam and ramosetron and a combination of midazolam and palonosetron for PONV prophylaxis in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: We enrolled 68 patients aged 20 to 65 years undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Patients were randomly allocated to the midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with ramosetron 0.3 mg (MR) or midazolam 0.05 mg/kg with palonosetron 0.075 mg (MP) groups. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, use of rescue antiemetics, and pain severity were evaluated at 2, 24, and 48 hours after surgery. Results: The incidence (38.2% vs 5.9%) and severity of postoperative nausea were significantly lower in the MP group at 2 hours after surgery (P &lt; .05). There were no significant differences in the incidence of vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or pain severity between the 2 groups. Conclusion: The combination of midazolam with palonosetron significantly decreased the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea compared with midazolam combined with ramosetron, especially in the early postoperative phase (0–2 hours) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

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

PurposeTo investigate the efficacy and safety of low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following bimaxillary surgery.MethodsThree 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsA low-dose bolus plus continuous infusion of penehyclidine was effective in preventing PONV without increasing emergence agitation.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT04454866.

Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia.

BackgroundWe compared the effects of palonosetron with ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) during the first 24 h after surgery in women receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) with fentanyl for pain control.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 204 healthy patients who were undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia were enrolled. In the palonosetron group (n = 102), 0.075 mg bolus was given intravenously (i.v.) 30 min before the end of surgery and 8 ml saline was added to the IV-PCA. In the ondansetron group (n = 102), 8 mg bolus i.v. was given 30 min before the end of surgery and 16 mg of ondansetron was added to the IV-PCA. The incidence of PONV, severity of nausea, and use of rescue anti-emetics were evaluated 6 and 24 h after the operation.ResultsThe incidences of nausea (55.6%) and vomiting (14.1%) in the palonosetron group did not differ from those (58.3 and 19.8%) in the ondansetron group during the first 24 h after surgery (P > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the severity of nausea and use of rescue anti-emetics between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThe effects of palonosetron in preventing PONV were not different from those of ondansetron during the first 24 h postoperatively in women receiving IV-PCA with fentanyl.

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

We performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anesthesia. We searched PubMed, EMbase, Ovid, Web of Science for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about TEAS for the prevention of PONV, published through July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, postoperative nausea (PON) and postoperative vomiting (POV) recorded within 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the numbers of patients needing antiemetic rescue and the incidence of postoperative adverse effects referred to general anesthesia. Data were pooled and analyzed by RevMan 5.3 software. Fourteen RCTs (1653 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. The current results suggested that application of TEAS showed obvious superiority in lower incidence of PONV (relative risk [RR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42 to 0.68, P < 0.0001), PON (RR, 0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.71, P < 0.0001), POV (RR 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.65, P < 0.0001), lower numbers of patients needing antiemetic rescue (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.78, P = 0.0005), lower incidence of dizziness (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60, P < 0.0001) and pruritus (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.58, P = 0.02), compared with controlled intervention. TEAS is a reasonable modality to incorporate into a multimodal management approach for the prevention of PONV, PON, POV and associated with lower numbers needing antiemetic rescue, lower incidence of adverse effects after general anesthesia.

Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study.

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia.Materials and MethodsA prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%).ConclusionGranisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.

Dexamethasone versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundDexamethasone is an antiemetic alternative to ondansetron. We aimed to compare the effects of dexamethasone and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Medline and Cochrane Library (from inception to July 2014) for eligible studies. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes included PONV in the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), PONV in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), and the postoperative anti-emetics used at both stages. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95 % CIs using random- and fixed-effects models.ResultsSeven trials involving 608 patients were included in this meta-analysis, which found that dexamethasone had a comparable effectiveness in preventing PONV (RR, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.73-1.13; P = 0.39) with that of ondansetron within 24 h of laparoscopic surgery, with no evidence of heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0 %; P = 0.71). In the early postoperative stage (0–6 h), ondansetron was better at decreasing PONV than dexamethasone (RR, 1.71; 95 % CI, 1.05-2.77; P = 0.03), while in the late postoperative stage (6–24 h), dexamethasone was more effective in preventing PONV than ondansetron (RR, 0.51; 95 % CI, 0.27-0.93; P = 0.03). There was no significant difference in the postoperative anti-emetics used (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.67-1.19; P = 0.45).ConclusionsDexamethasone was as effective and as safe as ondansetron in preventing PONV. Dexamethasone should be encouraged as an alternative to ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Efficacy of Palonosetron Versus Ramosetron on Preventing Opioid-Based Analgesia-Related Nausea and Vomiting After Lumbar Spinal Surgery

A prospective, randomized, and double-blind study. To compare the efficacy of ramosetron and palonosetron on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) associated with opioid-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCAopioid) after lumbar spinal surgery. IV-PCAopioid, an effective method to control pain after lumbar spinal surgery, accompanies PONV. Ramosetron and palonosetron are novel 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonists known to have longer action duration and higher receptor affinity than their congeners, whereas their relative efficacy has not been validated yet. One hundred ninety-six patients were randomly and evenly allocated to receive either 0.3 mg of ramosetron or 0.075 mg of palonosetron 10 minutes before the end of operation. Ramosetron or palonosetron were also added to the IV-PCAopioid, which was continuously infused for 48 hours postoperatively. The incidence and intensity of PONV were serially assessed for 72 hours postoperatively. Intensity of pain, volume of IV-PCAopioid consumption, use of rescue analgesics and antiemetics, and adverse events were also assessed. The overall incidence of PONV was lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group (50% vs. 67%, P = 0.014) without any intergroup difference in the incidence of vomiting. Nausea intensity scores were also lower until 6 (P = 0.041) and 24 hour (P = 0.026) postoperatively in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group. Pain intensity scores were significantly lower in the ramosetron group than the palonosetron group for 72 hours postoperatively. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in term of reducing the incidence and severity of nausea associated with IV-PCAopioid after lumbar spinal surgery. This favorable influence of ramosetron on PONV was translated to significant postoperative pain reduction compared with palonosetron. 1.

Evaluation of the ability of continuous palonosetron infusion, using a patient-controlled analgesia device, to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting

BackgroundThe efficacy of palonosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), as well as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, has already been demonstrated in multiple clinical studies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether continuous infusion of palonosetron following single injection could reduce PONV to a greater extent than single injection only of palonosetron.MethodsIn total, 132 women were enrolled in the study. All subjects were over the age of 20 years and were scheduled to undergo gynecologic laparoscopic surgery. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups. In both groups, patients received 0.075 mg of palonosetron intravenously, immediately before induction of anesthesia. In the continuous palonosetron infusion group, 0.075 mg (1.5 ml) of palonosetron was added to the patient-controlled analgesia device. In the single-injection palonosetron group, 1.5 ml of normal saline was added.ResultsThe incidence of PONV 24 hours postoperatively was significantly lower in the continuous palonosetron infusion group than the single-injection palonosetron group (31.8 vs. 56.1%, P = 0.009).ConclusionsContinuous palonosetron infusion, following single injection, reduces the incidence of PONV compared with single injection only.

Palonosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in middle ear surgery: a randomized-controlled study

EnAbstract Background This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of palonosetron, the 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonist, in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery. Patients and methods Sixty-two ASA I and II patients who had undergone middle ear surgery under general anesthesia were included in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study and were enrolled into two groups: palonosetron group (P) and placebo control group (C). Patients were administered 0.075 mg of palonosetron or isotonic saline, respectively. The incidence of PONV and requirement of rescue antiemetics were assessed. The severity of nausea was evaluated according to the visual analogue scale. Patients who had not experienced any attack of vomiting or received rescue drug were considered to have a complete response. Results The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in group P than that in the control group C during (0–4 h) P-value less than 0.001 and (4–24 h) 0.05 periods, and the incidence of complete response was 83.7% in group P and 6.5% in group C (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion Palonosetron could provide effective prophylactic antiemetic control to prevent PONV after middle ear surgery under general anesthesia.

Anti-emetic effect of ondansetron and palonosetron in thyroidectomy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Palonosetron is a new potent 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 antagonist. Although this drug is thought to be more effective in patients receiving opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), clinical data are lacking. This study compared the effects of i.v. ondansetron and palonosetron administered at the end of surgery in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in high-risk patients receiving i.v. PCA after thyroidectomy. A total of 100 female non-smoking subjects were randomly assigned into a palonosetron group or an ondansetron group. Ondansetron was given as an 8 mg bolus and 16 mg was added to the i.v. PCA mixture. In the palonosetron group, 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus only. Fentanyl-based PCA was provided for 24 h after operation. The incidence of nausea and vomiting, severity of nausea, requirement for rescue anti-emetics, and adverse effects were evaluated during 0-2 and 2-24 h. The incidence of PONV during the 24 h postoperative period was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (42% vs 62%, P=0.045). No differences were observed between the groups during the first 2 h. However, the incidence of nausea and vomiting and nausea severity were significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group during 2-24 h. The only difference in the use of rescue anti-emetics was at 2-24 h (10% with palonosetron compared with 28% with ondansetron, P=0.02). Palonosetron is more effective than ondansetron for high-risk patients receiving fentanyl-based PCA after thyroidectomy, especially 2-24 h after surgery.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Palonosetron Compared with Ondansetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Gynaecological Laparoscopic Surgery

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the relative efficacy of palonosetron (a new, selective 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 [5-HT(3)] receptor antagonist) and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Patients received either palonosetron 0.075 mg (n = 45) or ondansetron 8 mg (n = 45), intravenously, immediately before induction of general anaesthesia. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting and the severity of nausea according to a visual analogue scale were monitored immediately after the end of surgery and during the following 24 h. The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the palonosetron group compared with the ondansetron group (42.2% vs 66.7%, respectively). There were no significant statistical differences in the visual analogue scale for nausea. In conclusion, palonosetron 0.075 mg was more effective than ondansetron 8 mg in preventing PONV.

The Efficacy of Several Neuromuscular Monitoring Modes at the P6 Acupuncture Point in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

In this study, we tested the efficacy of several neuromuscular monitoring modes at the P6 acupuncture point for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). In this prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 264 women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy were evaluated for PONV. Neuromuscular blockade was monitored by acceleromyography with 1-Hz single twitch (ST) over the ulnar nerve (n = 54, control), and ST (n = 52), train-of-four (n = 53), double-burst stimulation (n = 53), or tetanus (n = 52) over the median nerve stimulating at the P6 acupuncture point. The incidence of PONV (P = 0.022), the number of requests for patient-controlled analgesia (P = 0.009), and total patient-controlled analgesia volume (P = 0.042) 6 hours after tetanic stimulation were significantly reduced in the treatment group compared with the control group. Overall, patients in the tetanus group were more satisfied with the management of PONV compared with patients in the control group. Tetanic stimulation applied to the P6 acupuncture point can reduce PONV after laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with ST stimulation of the ulnar nerve, resulting in a greater degree of patient satisfaction. None of the stimulations, ST, train-of-four, or double-burst, applied to the P6 acupuncture point significantly affected PONV.

Nausea and Vomiting After Strabismus-Surgery: A Randomized Comparison of Isoflurane, Enflurane, Sevoflurane and Propofol

Background: Previous studies reported that propofol anesthesia is an effective means of preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after different types of surgeries. The present analysis of a large antiemetic trial is intend to compare propofol versus isoflurane, enflurane or sevoflurane with respect to the incidences of PONV after strabismus surgery. Methods: 238 ASA I - III inpatients, aged 4-65 years were randomly assigned to receive either isoflurane (group I, n = 60), enflurane (group E, n = 59), sevoflurane (group S, n = 59) or propofol (group P, n = 60) for maintenance as a subgroup of a larger trial of factorial design to investigate interventions to reduce PONV. After opioid application, patients in the inhalational groups (group I, E and S) had anesthesia induced with thiopental, those in group P received propofol for induction. Tracheal intubation was facilitated with succinylcholine. Patients were ventilated with N2O/O2 2:1. Incidence and severity of PONV as well as the need for antiemetic rescue treatment were studied during the first 24 hours after anesthesia. Paracetamol and tramadol was given to treat postoperative pain. Results: There were no significant differences between study groups with respect to patient demographics and risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Nausea was reported by 43%, 41%, 42% and 22% of patients in groups I, E, S and P, respectively (P = 0.043). The incidence of vomiting was 40%, 46%, 34% and 18% in groups I, E, S and P, respectively (P = 0.011). Conclusion: Patients anesthetized with propofol showed a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting compared to volatile anesthetics, while there was no significant differences in emetogenicity between the volatile anesthetics.

Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for preventing nausea and vomiting after middle ear surgery under general anesthesia with sevoflurane and remifentanil.

In this randomized, double-blinded study, we evaluated the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after middle ear surgery. Seventy patients of either sex, ASA 1-2, scheduled middle ear surgery (mastoidectomy and tympanoplasty) under general anesthesia with sevoflurane and remifentanil were included. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and received IV ramosetron 0.3 mg (group R) or ondansetron 4 mg (group O) before the end of operation (n = 35 each). The incidence and severity of PONV, pain score (VAS), rescue antiemetic, rescue analgesic and side effects were assessed following 6 hr, 24 hr and 48 hr after surgery. The incidence of PONV showed no significant difference between groups at each time points after surgery. There were no difference in the severity of nausea, pain score, rescue antiemetic, analgesic drug usage and side effects between groups. Prophylactic therapy with ramosetron is as effective and safe as conventional prophylactic therapy with ondansetron for preventing PONV in patients undergoing general anesthesia for middle ear surgery.

Comparison of Ramosetron and Ondansetron for Preventing Nausea and Vomiting after Gynecologic Surgery

Background: In this randomized, double-blinded study, we evaluated the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in gynecologic patients. Methods: Sixty patients undergoing total abdominal hysterectomy or myomectomy, ASA physical status I or II, aged 30-65 yr, received IV ramosetron 0.3 mg (group R) or ondansetron 4 mg (group O) at the end of surgery (n = 30 each). A standard general inhalational anesthesia and postoperative IV patient-controlled analgesia were used. At postoperative 3, 24 and 48 hours, we assessed pain score (VAS), incidence of PONV, rescue drug consumption, adverse events associated with study medications and overall satisfaction scores. Results: The incidence of PONV showed no difference between groups at each time points after surgery (overall incidence; 59% in group R, 69% in group O). There was no difference in the severity of nausea, pain score and analgesic drug usage. However, the consumption of rescue drug in the ramosetron group was markedly less than that of ondansetron group at postoperative 3 hrs (none vs. 8 patients). No clinically serious adverse events were observed in either of the groups. Overall satisfaction scores were also comparable in both groups (6.5 ± 3.0 vs. 6.2 ± 2.7). Conclusions: Prophylactic therapy with ramosetron is as effective and safe as conventional prophylactic therapy with ondansetron for preventing PONV in women undergoing general anesthesia for gynecologic surgery. Severity of PONV seems significantly less with ramosetron than with ondansetron in the early postoperative period.

Comparison of Anesthetic Techniques for Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Undergoing Thyroidectomy

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the anesthetic techniques for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the patients undergoing thyroidectomy. Methods: Sixty patients of ASA status I or II, undergoing thyroidectomy were studied. Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups. Group 1 (n = 22): anesthesia was induced by propofol (2 mg/kg) and maintained with desflurane and 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Group 2 (n = 22): anesthesia was induced and maintained propofol and alfentanil using a computer controlled infusion system in 60% medical air in oxygen. Group 3 (n = 16): anesthesia was induced propofol using computer controlled infusion system in combination 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen. The incidence of PONV was assessed at 6 and 24 hours after the surgery and standardized by Rhodes index of nausea, vomiting and retching (RINVR) score. Results: In group 3, the incidence of PONV within the first 6 hours after surgery, was significantly lower as P ＜ 0.05. But, there was no statistical differences among the three groups in the 6 to 24 hours’ RINVR score after surgery. Conclusions: The use of propofol for induction and maintenance with combination 50% is the most effective technique at preventing PONV among the three groups within the first 6 hours after thyroidectomy. This study found no statistically significant difference between the RINVR score, using desflurane- and propofol-alfentanil.

Granisetron-droperidol combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female patients undergoing breast surgery

We have compared the efficacy and safety of the combination granisetron-droperidol with each antiemetic alone in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after breast surgery. In a randomized, double-blind study, 150 female patients received granisetron 3 mg, droperidol 1.25 mg or granisetron 3 mg with droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 50 each) i.v., immediately before induction of anaesthesia. A standard general anaesthetic technique was used. The incidence of PONV during the first 24 h after anaesthesia was 18% with granisetron, 38% with droperidol and 4% with the granisetron-droperidol combination (P < 0.05; overall Fisher's exact probability test). We conclude that the granisetron-droperidol combination was more effective than each antiemetic alone in the prevention of PONV in female patients undergoing breast surgery.