Summary

Background and objective: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after ophthalmic surgery under general anaesthesia remains a complex and perturbing complication associated with several factors. Little information is available regarding the risk factors for nausea and vomiting after vitrectomy in adults. In this study, we evaluated the potential risk factors for PONV after vitrectomy in adult patients. Methods: Univariate and multivariate analyses of clinical factors associated with PONV were undertaken in a retrospective case–control series of 247 adult patients undergoing vitrectomy under general anaesthesia. We examined PONV for the first 48 h. Factors examined were age, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, H2-blocker as premedication, type of general anaesthesia (sevoflurane and fentanyl or total intravenous (i.v.) anaesthesia with propofol and fentanyl), duration of surgery, and intraoperative fentanyl dose. Results: Fifty-nine patients (24%) reported one or more episodes of PONV during the study period. Female gender (P < 0.01), lower BMI (P < 0.01) and general anaesthesia with inhalational anaesthetics (P < 0.01) were significantly related to nausea during the first 2 h postoperatively. Female gender (P < 0.01) was significantly related to nausea and vomiting throughout the study period. Other factors, including smoking status, did not alter the risk for nausea and/or vomiting. Conclusions: We conclude that female gender, lower BMI and inhalation anaesthesia are the main risk factors for PONV after vitrectomy in adults. Smoking status did not reduce the incidence of PONV in our patients.

Summary

Background and objective: Ondansetron is widely used for the prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting, while haloperidol is an antiemetic that lacks recent data on efficacy and adverse effects. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study involving 93 females undergoing gynaecological procedures under general anaesthesia, we compared the efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic haloperidol 1 mg intravenous and ondansetron 4 mg intravenous vs. placebo. Results: During the overall observation period (0–24 h), in the haloperidol, ondansetron and placebo groups respectively, the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting was 40.7% (11/27), 48.2% (13/27) and 55.5% (15/27), and the need of rescue antiemetics was 22.2% (6/27), 44.4% (12/27) and 40.7% (11/27), with P values >0.05 among the three groups. During the early observation period (0–2 h), in the haloperidol, ondansetron and placebo groups respectively, the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting was 13.7% (4/29), 26.6% (8/30) and 43% (13/30), and the need for rescue antiemetics was 6.8% (2/29), 26.6% (8/30) and 36.6% (11/30). Between haloperidol and placebo groups, the P value was 0.04 for nausea and/or vomiting, and was 0.01 for rescue antiemetics, in addition to lower nausea scores (P = 0.03). During the late observation period (2–24 h), no significant difference was shown among the three groups. Conclusion: The prophylactic administration of 1 mg intravenous haloperidol or 4 mg ondansetron, in female patients undergoing gynaecological surgery, did not improve the overall incidence of nausea and/or vomiting vs. placebo. However, haloperidol 1 mg proved to be an effective antiemetic in the early observation period without significant adverse effects.

Summary

Background and objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of acupressure in preventing nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynaecological operations and receiving a patient-controlled analgesia device. Methods: Patients aged between 40 and 65 yr were included. Exclusion criteria were obesity, diabetes mellitus, and history of motion sickness, postoperative nausea and vomiting, or smoking. Patients were randomized into one of two groups, acupressure and control. In the acupressure group, acupressure bands were placed on both wrists with the plastic bead positioned at the P6 point. In controls, beads were placed at a non-acupoint site. All patients received a standard general anaesthetic. Postoperatively, patients were connected to a patient-controlled analgesia device with morphine (loading dose 5 mg, background infusion 1 mg h−1, bolus dose 1 mg and lock-out time 10 min). Pain and sedation scores, respiratory rate, heart rate, arterial pressure and oxygen saturation were recorded for 24 h. Metoclopramide 10 mg was administered intravenously as a rescue antiemetic. Results: Fifty patients received acupressure and 50 were controls. In the acupressure group, 33% of patients had nausea compared with 63% controls. The cumulative incidence of vomiting at 24 h was 25% with acupressure and 61% in controls. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and antiemetic use was significantly lower with acupressure. Conclusions: Acupressure at the P6 meridian point is an effective alternative for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving patient-controlled analgesia with morphine after gynaecological surgery.

Summary

Background and objective: A randomized double-blind controlled trial was performed to determine if there was a difference in discomfort on injection between two preparations of propofol. A long-chain triglyceride preparation (LCT-propofol (Fresenius)) was compared against a medium- and long-chain triglyceride preparation (MCT/LCT-propofol (BBraun)). Methods: One hundred and twenty ASA I–II patients listed for elective procedures were consented and randomized to receive either induction agent. A standard rate of infusion was used for induction of anaesthesia and subjects were questioned about discomfort until contact was lost. Discomfort was recorded as none, mild, moderate or severe. Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and anti-emetic requirements were recorded in the postanaesthetic care unit. Results: There was seen to be a 54% reduction in moderate/severe discomfort with MCT/LCT-propofol compared with LCT-propofol (P < 0.006). There was a 70% reduction in severe discomfort with MCT/LCT-propofol compared with LCT-propofol (P < 0.04). The term discomfort was used during the study because there is a wide array of unpleasant sensations felt by patients during propofol induction which are not always reported as pain. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or anti-emetic use between the two groups. Conclusions: There is a significant decrease in the incidence of discomfort with MCT/LCT-propofol compared with LCT-propofol. This difference is more marked in subjects reporting severe discomfort.

Summary

Background and objective: There is a controversy regarding the best drug for prevention of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine. The aim of this study was to examine efficacy and tolerability of droperidol compared with ondansetron for the prevention of morphine-induced nausea and vomiting. Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 120 women undergoing Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia with intrathecal morphine 0.1 mg received intravenous ondansetron 4 mg (n = 40), droperidol 1.25 mg (n = 40) or saline (n = 40) immediately after umbilical-cord clamping. Nausea and vomiting were graded according to intensity at 1, 2, 4, 6, 12 and 24 h. Results: Nausea or vomiting occurred in 14 patients (35%) in the placebo group, 4 (10%) in the ondansetron group and 10 (25%) in the droperidol group; the difference between ondansetron and placebo was statistically significant (P = 0.007). Eleven of the 14 placebo patients (27.5%) vomited, compared with none of the 4 ondansetron patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.0004) and 5 of the droperidol patients (vs. placebo, P = 0.18). Three of the 14 placebo patients (7.5%) were nauseous, compared with 4 (10%) receiving ondansetron and 5 (12.5%) receiving droperidol. Conclusions: Ondansetron was effective in reducing the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal morphine for Caesarean section.

Abstract

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting still represents a major problem after surgery. Although risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting and procedures to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting have been described, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting remains high. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential role of the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole to reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting after elective surgery. Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, ASA I–III patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting received esomeprazole tablets 3 × 40 mg or matching placebo the evening before surgery, 2 h preoperatively and 24 h postoperatively. Total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol and remifentanil without nitrous oxide (FiO2 0.5) was used. Patients were interviewed using a standardized postoperative nausea and vomiting questionnaire at discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit, 6 h and 24 h later. The severity of nausea was estimated on a 0–100 point numerical scale (0 = no nausea, 100 = maximum nausea). Results: The incidence of vomiting was similar in the esomeprazole (n = 45) and the placebo (n = 48) groups (64.4% vs. 60.5%, P > 0.05). The average nausea score was 17.8 with esomeprazole and was 18.7 with placebo (P > 0.05). Only 24.7% of all patients (esomeprazole 24.4%, placebo 25.0%) did not experience any nausea or vomiting. Conclusion: There is no evidence that prophylactic esomeprazole reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or the degree of postoperative nausea.

Summary

Background and objectives: This study was designed to investigate whether single epidural droperidol or continuous epidural droperidol inhibit pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting induced by postoperative continuous epidural fentanyl administration, and to identify the optimal method of administering epidural droperidol. Methods: 120 ASA I–II patients undergoing subtotal gastrectomy with general anaesthesia combined with epidural anaesthesia were randomly allocated into three groups: control (no droperidol), single injection (droperidol 2.5 mg) and continuous group (droperidol 2.5 mg 2 day−1). Postoperatively the frequency and severity of pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting in all groups were compared during 48 h. Results: The frequency and severity of pruritus was significantly lower in both single injection and continuous groups than control group after epidural fentanyl administration (P < 0.05). The frequency and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in single injection group than control group after epidural fentanyl administration (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Epidural continuous droperidol is effective for reducing pruritus, and single epidural droperidol injection is effective for reducing pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting induced by postoperative continuous epidural fentanyl analgesia.

Summary

Background and objective: Low flow desflurane and sevoflurane anaesthesia were administered to children and compared for haemodynamic response, renal and hepatic function, recovery time and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Methods: Eighty ASA I–II patients aged 5–15 yr were included in the study. Midazolam was given for premedication. Anaesthesia induction was performed with fentanyl, propofol and atracurium. After intubation, the first group received desflurane, oxygen and nitrous oxide at 6 L min−1 and the second sevoflurane, oxygen and nitrous oxide at 6L min−1. Ten minutes after induction the flow was decreased to 1L min−1 in both groups. Haemodynamic parameters, preoperative and postoperative renal and hepatic function, the times of operation and anaesthesia, and early recovery data were recorded. Modified Aldrete scores were noted at the 10th and 30th minutes postoperatively and postoperative nausea, and vomiting were assessed. Results: There were no significant differences in haemodynamic parameters, renal and hepatic functions, postoperative recovery and postoperative nausea and vomiting between groups. The recovery time was shorter in the desflurane group compared to the sevoflurane group. Conclusion: Low flow desflurane and sevoflurane anaesthesia do not adversely affect haemodynamic parameters, hepatic and renal function in children. Desflurane may be preferred when early recovery from anaesthesia is warranted.

Summary

Background and objective: Continuous spinal anaesthesia and continuous epidural anaesthesia are both able to provide adequate postoperative pain relief. Combining local anaesthetics and opioids results in synergistic effects. The purpose of this randomized, prospective study was to compare quality of analgesia, side-effects and patient's satisfaction between spinal bupivacaine alone and epidural bupivacaine with sufentanil postoperatively.

Methods: Fifty-nine patients scheduled for hip arthroplasty were randomly assigned either to Group 1 receiving continuous spinal anaesthesia or Group 2 receiving continuous epidural anaesthesia. Postoperatively, those in Group 1 received a 1 mL bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 10 mL/24 h of bupivacaine 0.25%. Those in Group 2 received a 5 mL bolus of lidocaine 2%, followed by a continuous infusion of bupivacaine 0.25% with sufentanil 0.001 mg mL−1 at 4 mL h−1. Pain was measured using a verbal rating score and a visual analogue scale.

Results: Group 1 and Group 2 of 43.3% and 37.9% reported complete analgesia on the verbal rating score. No statistically significant difference was found in the visual analogue scale. Nausea and vomiting occurred significantly more often in Group 2. The patient satisfaction rates did not differ significantly.

Conclusions: Continuous spinal analgesia with bupivacaine alone and continuous epidural analgesia with bupivacaine/sufentanil are both effective for postoperative pain relief after hip replacement. Those patients in the epidural group reported better analgesia but had a higher rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Efficacy of pain therapy did not correlate with patient satisfaction.

Summary

Background and objective: In recent human and animal studies, intrathecal administration of various doses of neostigmine produces analgesia without neurotoxicity. The aim was to examine the effects of intrathecal neostigmine and bupivacaine in patients undergoing perianal surgery under spinal anaesthesia.

Methods: The patients were randomly allocated into three groups of 15: Group 1 (controls) received hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg + dextrose 5%, 1 mL, to a total volume of 3 mL; Group 2 received hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg + neostigmine 25 μg in dextrose 5%, 1 mL, to a total volume of 3 mL; and Group 3 received hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg + neostigmine 50 μg in dextrose 5%, 1 mL, to a total volume of 3 mL.

Results: The onset of sensory block was significantly earlier for Group 2 and 3 patients compared with Group 1 patients (P < 0.05). The full time to recovery of motor block and sensory block was significantly longer in Group 3 compared with Group 1 (P < 0.05). In Group 3, the average time until the first dose of tramadol was longer than Group 1 (P < 0.05). The incidence rate of nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in Groups 2 and 3 than in Group 1 (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The use of intrathecal neostigmine as an analgesic drug in perianal surgery is unsatisfactory because of prolonged motor blockade and nausea.

Summary

Background and objective: In October 2000, we conducted a national postal survey of consultant day case anaesthetists in the UK to explore the range and variation in the practice of anaesthetizing a patient for day case surgery (paediatrics, urology and orthopaedics). The survey was carried out as part of a larger study that comprised a major two-centre randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the costs and outcome of several anaesthetic techniques during day care surgery in paediatric and adult patients (cost-effectiveness study of anaesthesia in day case surgery). We report the findings of this national survey of adult urology and orthopaedic day case anaesthetic practice in the UK.

Methods: The survey used a structured postal questionnaire and collected data on the duration of the surgical procedure; the use of premedication; the anaesthetic agents used for induction and maintenance; the fresh gas flows used for anaesthesia; the use of antiemetics; and the administration of local anaesthesia and analgesia.

Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 74% (63% for urology, 67% for orthopaedics). The survey indicated the following practice in adult urology and adult orthopaedic day case surgery: 6 and 12% used premedication; propofol was the preferred induction agent (96 and 97%) and isoflurane the preferred maintenance agent (56 and 58%); 32 and 41% used prophylactic antiemetics; 86 and 93% used a laryngeal mask.

Conclusions: This survey identifies the variation in current clinical practice in adult day surgery anaesthesia in the UK and discusses this variation in the context of current published evidence.

Summary

Background and objective: In October 2000, we conducted a national postal survey of day case consultant anaesthetists in the UK to explore the range and variation in practice of anaesthetizing a patient for day case surgery (paediatrics, urology and orthopaedics). This paper reports the findings of this national survey of paediatric day case anaesthetic practice carried out as part of a major two-centre randomized controlled trial designed to investigate the costs and outcome of several anaesthetic techniques during day care surgery in paediatric and adult patients (cost-effectiveness study of anaesthesia in day case surgery).

Methods: The survey used a structured postal questionnaire and collected data on the duration of surgical procedure; the use of premedication; the anaesthetic agents used for induction and maintenance; the fresh gas flow rates used for general anaesthesia; the use of antiemetics; and the administration of local anaesthesia and analgesia.

Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 74 and 63% for the paediatric section of the survey. Respondents indicated that 19% used premedication, 63% used propofol for induction, 54% used isoflurane for maintenance, 24% used prophylactic antiemetics and 85% used a laryngeal mask. The findings of this national survey are discussed and compared with published evidence.

Conclusions: This survey identifies the variation in clinical practice in paediatric day surgery anaesthesia in the UK.