Opioid-free anesthesia with esketamine-dexmedetomidine versus opioid-based anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil in shoulder arthroscopy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: OFA (Opioid-free anesthesia) has the potential to reduce the occurrence of opioid-related adverse events and enhance postoperative recovery. Our research aimed to investigate whether OFA, combining esketamine and dexmedetomidine, could serve as an alternative protocol to traditional OBA (opioid-based anesthesia) in shoulder arthroscopy, particularly in terms of reducing PONV (postoperative nausea and vomiting). METHODS: A total of 60 patients treated with shoulder arthroscopy from September 2021 to September 2022 were recruited. Patients were randomly assigned to the OBA group (n = 30) and OFA group (n = 30), receiving propofol-remifentanil TIVA (total intravenous anesthesia) and esketamine-dexmedetomidine intravenous anesthesia, respectively. Both groups received ultrasound-guided ISBPB(interscalene brachial plexus block)for postoperative analgesia. RESULTS: The incidence of PONV on the first postoperative day in the ward (13.3% vs. 40%, P < 0.05) was significantly lower in the OFA group than in the OBA group. Moreover, the severity of PONV was less severe in the OFA group than in the OBA group in PACU (post-anesthesia care unit) (0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 3], P<0.05 ) and in the ward 24 h postoperatively ( 0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 2.25], P<0.05). Additionally, the OFA group experienced a significantly shorter length of stay in the PACU compared to the OBA group (39.4 ± 6.76 min vs. 48.7 ± 7.90 min, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the OBA with propofol-remifentanil, the OFA with esketamine- dexmedetomidine proved to be feasible for shoulder arthroscopy, resulting in a reduced incidence of PONV and a shorter duration of stay in the PACU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No: ChiCTR2100047355), 12/06/2021.

Comparison of postoperative analgesia effects between subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum block and transversus abdominis plane block in bariatric surgery: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the prevalence of obesity is on the rise annually. Bariatric surgery stands out as the most efficacious approach for addressing obesity. Obese patients are more prone to experience moderate to severe pain after surgery due to lower pain thresholds. Regional block, as an important component of multimodal analgesia in bariatric surgery, is crucial in reducing opioid consumption and alleviating postoperative pain in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) has gained widespread utilization in bariatric surgery; however, its limitation of inadequate reduction of visceral pain in obese patients remains a significant concern. Therefore, it is imperative to explore new and more efficient strategies for analgesia. Quadratus lumborum block (QLB) has emerged as a popular nerve block in recent years, frequently utilized in conjunction with general anesthesia for abdominal surgery. In the cadaver study of QLB, it was confirmed that the dye level could reach up to T6 when using the subcostal anterior quadratus lumborum muscle approach, which could effectively reduce the incision pain and visceral pain of bariatric surgery patients during the perioperative period. However, there is currently a lack of research on the use of subcostal anterior QLB in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Our study aims to investigate whether subcostal anterior QLB can provide superior perioperative analgesic efficacy for bariatric surgery under general anesthesia compared to TAPB, leading to reduced postoperative opioid consumption and a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a prospective, randomized controlled trial aiming to recruit 66 patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The participants will be randomly allocated into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: subcostal anterior QLB group (n = 33) and TAPB group (n = 33). The study aims to investigate the efficacy of subcostal anterior QLB and TAPB in obese patients who are scheduled to undergo bariatric surgery. Our primary outcome is to observe the amount of opioids used in the two groups 24 h after operation. The secondary outcomes included VAS of pain during rest/activity after operation, the type and dose of additional analgesics, the occurrence and severity of PONV, the type and dose of additional antiemetic drugs, postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU) time, time of first postoperative exhaust, time to first out of bed activity, time to first liquid diet and postoperative admission days. DISCUSSION: Opioid analgesics are prone to causing adverse reactions such as nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression, especially in obese patients. Multimodal analgesia, including nerve block, can effectively reduce the dose of opioids and alleviate their adverse effects. Currently, TAPB is the most prevalent nerve block analgesia method for abdominal surgery. Recent studies have indicated that subcostal anterior QLB offers advantages over TAPB, including a wider block plane, faster onset, and longer maintenance time. It is not clear which of the two nerve block analgesia techniques is better for postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Our objective in this investigation is to elucidate the superior method between TAPB and subcostal anterior QLB for postoperative pain management in bariatric surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR ChiCTR2300070556. Registered on 17 April 2023.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a modern concept that aims to improve the perioperative patient care by implementing an evidence-based, patient-centered team approach. This paper aims to analyze the outcome, variations and limits of the ERAS-protocols used for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methods: We performed a systematic review on PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science to document the outcomes of applying various ERAS protocols in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 papers, totaling 1453 patients that underwent LC, were included in the qualitative analysis. ERAS-protocols applied in those studies include various pre-, intra- and postoperative measures intended to boost the surgical recovery of the patients and shorten their hospital stay, without exposing them to hazardous encounters. Results: Patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy within an ERAS-specific protocol are proven to have lower levels of postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, with no statistically significant risk of postoperative complications. The postoperative results show that ERAS-laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a feasible and safe procedure, that may shorten the postoperative recovery after LC. Conclusions: Further studies are needed to establish a consensus regarding the perioperative protocol, before implementing ERAS for LC in clinical routine.

The effect of BIS-guided anaesthesia on the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children: a prospective randomized double-blind study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a significant problem following paediatric surgery, and volatile anaesthetics are an important cause of this phenomenon. BIS-guided anaesthesia, by reducing the consumption of anaesthetics, leads to a decrease in PONV in adult patients. STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the role of BIS-guided anaesthesia in reducing the incidence of paediatric PONV. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind study. SETTING: A single center study in university hospital in Czech republic, from June 2021 to November 2022. PATIENTS: A total of 163 children, aged 3-8 years with ASA I-II who underwent endoscopic adenoidectomy under general anaesthesia were included. INTERVENTIONS: In the intervention group, the depth of anaesthesia was maintained to values between 40 and 60 of BIS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: The use of BIS-guided anaesthesia led to a significant decrease in the incidence of nausea and vomiting compared to the control group [17% vs. 53%; RR (95%CI) 0.48 (0.27-0.86); p < 0.001and 16% vs. 34%; RR (95%CI) 0.33 (0.20-0.54); p = 0.01, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: BIS-guided anaesthesia decreases the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children undergoing adenoidectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04466579.

Comparison of the Influence of Intraoperative Use of Sevoflurane and Isoflurane on Postoperative Nausea, Vomiting, and Cough.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative nausea, vomiting, and cough are the most common adverse effects of general anesthesia resulting in high discomfort to the patient resulting in uneasiness during the recovery period. This study aimed to compare the influence of intraoperative use of sevoflurane and isoflurane on postoperative nausea, vomiting, and cough. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval from the institutional ethical committee, this quantitative observational institutional study was conducted on all patients aged between 18 and 65 years undergoing surgery under general anesthesia at KMC Hospital, Mangalore. Patients were allocated into the sevoflurane group or isoflurane group. RESULTS: All demographic parameters such as age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, and duration were comparable (P > 0.05). The sevoflurane group had higher number of patients (11 [14.86%]) with postoperative nausea at 0 h as compared isoflurane group (7 [9.45%]). Two patients in the isoflurane group reported postoperative vomiting at 0 h, whereas no patient in the sevoflurane group reported vomiting. For cough, a statistically significant correlation was seen between the two groups (P = 0.000) with majority of patients in the isoflurane group, i.e., 50 (67.6%) patients reporting cough at 0 h while only 15 (20.3%) reported cough in the sevoflurane group. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane was found to be better than isoflurane in terms of postoperative nausea vomiting and cough immediately after emergence in our study. Isoflurane cause the emergence of cough whereas no significant difference in nausea and vomiting was observed in both groups.

Résumé Introduction:Les nausées, vomissements et toux postopératoires sont les effets indésirables les plus courants de l'anesthésie générale, entraînant un inconfort élevé pour le patient, entraînant un malaise pendant la période de récupération. Cette étude visait à comparer l'influence del'utilisation peropératoire du sévoflurane et de l'isoflurane sur les nausées, vomissements et toux postopératoires.Méthode:Après approbation du comité d'éthique institutionnel, cette étude institutionnelle observationnelle quantitative a été menée sur tous les patients âgés de 18 à 65 ans subissant une intervention chirurgicale sous anesthésie générale à l'hôpital KMC de Mangalore. Les patients ont été répartis dans le groupe sévoflurane ou le groupe isoflurane.Résultats:Tous les paramètres démographiques comme l'âge, le sexe, l'ASA PS et la durée étaient comparables. ( P > 0,05) Le groupe sévoflurane avait un nombre plus élevé de patients [11 (14,86 %)] présentant des nausées postopératoires à 0 heure par rapport au groupe isoflurane [7 (9,45 %)]. 2 patients du groupe Isoflurane ont signalé des vomissements postopératoires à 0 heure alors qu'aucun patient du groupe Sévoflurane n'a signalé de vomissements. Pour la toux, une corrélation statistiquement significative a été observée entre les deux groupes ( P = 0,000) avec une majorité de patients dansle groupe isoflurane, c'est-à-dire 50 (67,6 %) patients signalant une toux à 0 heure, alors que seulement 15 (20,3 %) ont signalé une toux dans le groupe sévoflurane.Conclusion:Le sévoflurane s'est révélé meilleur que l'isoflurane en termes de nausées, vomissements et toux postopératoires immédiatement après l'émergence dans notre étude. L'isoflurane provoque une toux d'émergence alors qu'aucune différence significative en termes de nausées et de vomissements n'a été observée dans les deux groupes.

Which 5-HT3 antagonist prevents nausea and vomiting in cesarean section more effectively: a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Selective 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 receptor (5-HT3) antagonists are commonly used to prevent nausea and vomiting (NV) after cesarean section, but the comparative efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists remains unclear. This network meta-analysis aimed to determine which 5-HT3 antagonists might be the preferred choice for preventing NV in parturient scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before August 24, 2023. Random network meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 to estimate the efficacy of different 5-HT3 antagonists in preventing intra- and post-operative NV. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-eight studies involving seven dosing regimens of three 5-HT3 antagonists were included. Pooled results showed that ondansetron 12 mg was superior to other six dosing regimens in the prevention of postoperative NV (PONV), PON, and POV, with the ranking probability of 80.2%, 95.8%, and 87.7%, respectively, followed by granisetron two mg. Ondansetron 4 mg might be the first choice for preventing intraoperative NV (IONV) (92.8%), with the least use of postoperative rescue antiemetics (90.6%). Granisetron 3 mg and tropisetron 2 mg might be the best options for preventing ION and IOV, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available data, ondansetron 12 mg may have the best efficacy in preventing PONV, PON, and POV. Additionally, more studies are warranted to compare the safety of ondansetron 12 mg versus granisetron two mg.

Impact of Preoperative Gum Chewing on Postoperative Anti-Emetic Use in Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Surgery for Benign Ovarian Masses: A Prospective, Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Objectives: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common issue for females undergoing gynecological surgeries, including those assisted by robotic systems. Despite available prophylactic measures, the incidence of PONV remains high, negatively impacting recovery and increasing healthcare costs. This study evaluates whether preoperative gum chewing reduces the need for anti-emetic drugs in females undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian mass. Materials and Methods: This prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial enrolled 92 adult females scheduled for robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery to treat benign ovarian mass. Following exclusions, the remaining participants were randomly assigned to either a gum-chewing group or a no-gum-chewing group. The gum-chewing group chewed sugar-free gum for 15 min in the holding area before surgery. The primary outcome measured was the need for anti-emetics to control PONV during the first hour in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included the number of anti-emetic requests. No preemptive anti-emetics were administered during surgery. Results: Out of the initial 92 patients, 88 were included in the final analysis, with 44 in each group. The incidence of PONV requiring anti-emetics in the PACU was significantly lower in the gum-chewing group (79.5%) compared to the no-gum-chewing group (95.5%). Additionally, the number of anti-emetic requests was higher in the no-gum-chewing group. No postoperative complications such as tooth or jaw pain/injury or gastric content regurgitation were reported. Conclusions: Preoperative gum chewing for 15 min immediately before surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in females undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery for benign ovarian mass. This simple, non-pharmacological intervention improved patient comfort and reduced the need for anti-emetic medications without any adverse effects. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and to develop guidelines for incorporating preoperative gum chewing into clinical practice.

Effect of herbal medicine on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, herbal medicines have been used to alleviate nausea and vomiting; however, a comprehensive clinical evaluation for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), especially after laparoscopic surgery, remains limited. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medicine as an alternative therapy to prevent and manage nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery compared with untreated, placebo, and Western medicine groups. METHODS: We searched 11 databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of herbal medicines on PONV after laparoscopic surgery on July 7, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened and selected eligible studies, extracted clinical data, and evaluated the quality of evidence using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV, whereas the secondary outcomes included the frequency and intensity of PONV, symptom improvement time, antiemetic requirement frequency, and incidence of adverse events. Review Manager Version 5.3. was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: We identified 19 RCTs with 2726 participants comparing herbal medicine with no treatment, placebo, and Western medicine. The findings showed that compared with no treatment, herbal medicine demonstrated significant effects on vomiting incidence (risk ratio [RR] = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-0.57, P < .00001). Compared with placebo, herbal medicine revealed a significant effect on the severity of nausea 12 hours after laparoscopic surgery (standardized mean difference = -2.04, 95% CI -3.67 to -0.41, P = .01). Herbal medicines showed similar effects with Western medicine on the incidence of postoperative nausea (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.63-1.42, P = .77) and vomiting (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.25-1.84, P = .45). Furthermore, comparing the experimental group containing herbal medicine and control group excluding herbal medicine, adverse events were considerably lower in the group with herbal medicine (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.72, P = .001). CONCLUSION: Herbal medicine is an effective and safe treatment for nausea and vomiting secondary to laparoscopic surgery. However, the number of studies was small and their quality was not high; thus, more well-designed RCTs are warranted in the future.

Opioid-free versus opioid-based anesthesia in major spine surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Major spine surgery is associated with severe postoperative pain and increased opioid consumption. Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is thought to provide adequate intraoperative analgesia with reduced postoperative opioid consumption. The aim of this study is to compare the impact of intraoperative OFA approach to the conventional opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and related side effects in patients undergoing multilevel spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: Forty-eight patients undergoing elective major spine surgery were randomly allocated to either receive intraoperative dexmedetomidine and lidocaine (OFA group) or fentanyl during induction and intraoperative remifentanil (OBA group). All patients received intraoperative sevoflurane, propofol, rocuronium, ketamine, dexamethasone, ondansetron and postoperative paracetamol and patient-controlled analgesia device set to deliver intravenous morphine for 48 hours after surgery. Postoperative pain was measured using numerical rating scale. Opioid side effects were documented, when present. RESULTS: OFA group required less morphine in the first 24 hours post-surgery (17.28±12.25 mg versus 27.96±19.75 mg, P<0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly lower in the OFA group. More patients in the OFA group required antihypertensive medications compared to patients in the OBA group (P<0.05). In the post anesthesia care unit, OFA patients had a significantly longer stay than OBA patients (114.1±49.33 min versus 89.96±30.71 min, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: OFA can be an alternative to OBA in patients undergoing multilevel spine fusion surgery. OFA reduces opioids consumption in the first 24 hours and PONV.

Effect of intravenous palonosetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia for cesarean section: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of intravenous palonosetron compared to ondansetron on hypotension induced by spinal anesthesia in women undergoing cesarean section. METHODS: Fifty-four women scheduled for elective cesarean section were, randomly allocated to ondansetron group (n = 27) or palonosetron group (n = 27). Ten minutes prior to the administration of spinal anesthesia, participants received an intravenous injection of either ondansetron or palonosetron. A prophylactic phenylephrine infusion was initiated immediately following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine and fentanyl. The infusion rate was titrated to maintain adequate blood pressure until the time of fetal delivery. The primary outcome was total dose of phenylephrine administered. The secondary outcomes were nausea or vomiting, the need for rescue antiemetics, hypotension, bradycardia, and shivering. Complete response rate, defined as the absence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and no need for additional antiemetics, were assessed for up to 24 hours post-surgery. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the total dose of phenylephrine used between the ondansetron and palonosetron groups (387.5 µg [interquartile range, 291.3-507.8 µg versus 428.0 µg [interquartile range, 305.0-507.0 µg], P = 0.42). Complete response rates also showed no significant differences between the groups both within two hours post-spinal anesthesia (88.9% in the ondansetron group versus 100% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.24) and at 24 hours post-surgery (81.5% in the ondansetron group versus 88.8% in the palonosetron group; P = 0.7). In addition, there was no difference in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic administration of palonosetron did not demonstrate a superior effect over ondansetron in mitigating hemodynamic changes or reducing phenylephrine requirements in patients undergoing spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl for cesarean section.

Analgesia efficacy of erector spinae plane block in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia is now widely practised to minimise postoperative opioid consumption while optimising pain control. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess the analgesic efficacy of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) in patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgeries. This will be determined by perioperative opioid consumption, subjective pain scores, and incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: The authors systemically searched electronic databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 2023 comparing ESPB with other adjuvant analgesic techniques in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries. Nine randomised controlled trials encompassing 666 subjects were included in our study. RESULTS: ESPB was shown to reduce postoperative opioid consumption [mean difference (MD) of -5.95 mg (95% CI: -8.86 to -3.04; P <0.0001); I2 =89%], intraoperative opioid consumption MD of -102.4 mcg (95% CI: -145.58 to -59.21; P <0.00001); I2 =39%, and incidence of nausea [RR 0.38 (95% CI: 0.25-0.60; P <0.0001); I2 =0%] and vomiting [RR 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17-0.63; P =0.0009); I2 =0%] in laparoscopic abdominal surgeries. Subgroup analysis on laparoscopic colorectal surgeries further showed reduction in postoperative pain scores MD of -0.68 (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.41); P <0.00001; I2 =0%]. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that ESPB is a valuable technique with proven efficacy to potentially promote faster postoperative recovery through optimising pain control while minimising opioid requirements.

Comparison of anaesthesia strategies on postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intra-operative anaesthesia management should be optimised to reduce the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients; however, a single intervention may not effectively reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting in such patients. This study assessed the effect of an optimised anaesthetic protocol versus a conventional one on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: A single-centre randomised trial was conducted at Peking University Shenzhen Hospital from June 2021 to December 2022. Among 168 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, 116 qualified, and 103 completed the study with available data. Patients were categorized into the conventional group (received sevoflurane and standard fluids) and the optimised group (underwent propofol-based anaesthesia and was administered goal-directed fluids). The primary endpoints were postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence and severity within 24 h. RESULTS: Postoperative nausea and vomiting assessment at 0-3 h post-surgery revealed no significant differences between groups. However, at 3-24 h, the optimised anaesthetic protocol group showed lower postoperative nausea and vomiting incidence and severity than those of the conventional group (P = 0.005). In the conventional group, 20 (37.04%) patients experienced moderate-to-severe postoperative nausea and vomiting, compared to six (12.25%) patients in the optimised group (odds ratio = 0.237; 95% CI = 0.086, 0.656; P = 0.006). No significant differences were noted in antiemetic treatment, moderate-to-severe pain incidence, anaesthesia recovery, post-anaesthetic care unit stay, or postoperative duration between the groups. While the total intra-operative infusion volumes were comparable, the optimised group had a significantly higher colloidal infusion volume (500 mL vs. 0 mL, P = 0.014) than that of the conventional group. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting 3-24 h postoperatively in patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were significantly lower with propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia and goal-directed fluid therapy than with sevoflurane anaesthesia and traditional fluid management. Total intravenous anaesthesia is an effective multimodal antiemetic strategy for bariatric surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC- 2,100,046,534, registration date: 21 May 2021).

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

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following metabolic bariatric surgery (MBS). METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 12 h postoperatively in patients with MBS, but did not decrease PONV occurrence at 24 and 48 h postoperatively. CONCLUSION: 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 24 h postoperatively. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD 42024528154.

Intrathecal Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts to Bupivacaine in Elective Cesarean Section: A Case Series.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the combination of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine in spinal anesthesia is effective for reducing nausea, vomiting, shivering, and pain. A retrospective review of records was used to examine the outcomes of patients undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with dexamethasone, dexmedetomidine, and bupivacaine. The records of 11 consecutive patients who underwent cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine were evaluated. Data collected included patient demographics, medications and fluids administered, presence of nausea, vomiting, shivering, intraoperative breakthrough pain, and postoperative pain. There were no reported complications related to the administration of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine in this case series of patients. No patients required treatment for intraoperative vomiting, shivering, or breakthrough pain. One patient required opioid pain medication postoperatively. This case series demonstrates that the administration of intrathecal dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine in combination with bupivacaine for patients undergoing elective cesarean section appears to be safe and offers some advantages as to traditional methods of intrathecal delivery for this surgical procedure.

Efficacy and Safety of Paragastric Neural Blockade in Controlling Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting After Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are difficulties in controlling the symptoms of pain, nausea, and vomiting after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PGNB on pain and nausea and vomiting in the early postoperative period in patients who underwent LSG. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind study, the patients were divided into two equally formed groups: patients who underwent PGNB after LSG and the control group. Postoperative pain symptoms were evaluated using the visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and nausea and vomiting symptoms were evaluated using the postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) scores. RESULTS: The study was completed with 90 patients, 45 patients in each group. The VAS scores measured at postoperative hours 1, 6, and 12 were statistically significantly lower in the PGNB group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the 24th hour VAS scores. The mean PONV scores of the PGNB and control groups were 0.47 ± 0.89 and 1.67 ± 1.95, respectively, revealing a significantly higher value for the controls. The mean time to first mobilization in the postoperative period was significantly shorter in the PGNB group. Upon the evaluation of patient satisfaction, it was determined that the satisfaction score of the PGNB group was significantly higher. CONCLUSIONS: PGNB is an effective and safe method for managing pain, nausea, and vomiting that occur in the early period after LSG.