RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Bispectral Index (BIS) is used to monitor anesthetic depth and is a useful instrument to keep a check on intraoperative awareness. But there are various situations in which it shows false readings. Our aim of the study was to observe the changes in BIS value with steep Trendelenburg position, which is usually done, in robotic pelvic surgeries. METHODS: We included 100 patients in our study who underwent robotic prostatectomies and hysterectomies. After anesthetizing the patient, the patient's heart rate, systolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, end-tidal desflurane, end-tidal CO2, and BISwere recorded at three min. intervals, for 15 minutes before and 15 minutes after the Trendelenburg position without surgical stimulus. RESULTS: We found a significant increase in BIS values (p <0.05) after the change of position from supine to steep Trendelenburg. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure were almost constant. CONCLUSION: Our study concluded that the BIS value increases when patients were shifted from the supine to Trendelenburg position, which might raise the concern of a decrease in anesthetic depth.
RESUMO
Background Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Methodology In this randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, non-smoking females aged 18-70 years, weighing 40-90 kg, and posted for elective laparoscopic gynecological surgeries were enrolled into ondansetron (Group A, n = 65) and palonosetron (Group B, n = 65) groups. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg IV) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg IV) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, the incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated up to 48 h following surgery. Normally distributed continuous variables were compared using Student's t-test. In addition, the Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used to compare nominal categorical data as deemed appropriate. P-value <0.05 was observed as statistically significant. Results The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea scores during 0-2 and 24-48 hours were comparable, but PONV scores (p = 0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (p = 0.010) during 2-24 hours were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 hours. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 hours was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (p = 0.012; p <0.05). A complete response to the drug during 2-24 hours was significantly higher (p = 0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 and 24-48 hours. Both groups had a comparable incidence of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores. Conclusion Palonosetron has a superior anti-nausea effect, less need for rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV compared to ondansetron during 2-24h and comparable effect to ondansetron during 0-2h and 24-48h postoperative period in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery.
RESUMO
Background: Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in susceptible patients can be unacceptably high (70-80% reported incidence). This study was designed to evaluate the effect of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. Methodology: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind trial, nonsmoking females 18-70 years and weighing 40-90 kg, scheduled for elective laparoscopic gynaecological surgeries, were enrolled into the ondansetron (Group A, n=65) or palonosetron (Group B, n=65) group. Palonosetron (1 mcg/kg 4) or ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg 4) were administered just before induction. Postoperatively, incidence of nausea, vomiting, PONV (scored on a scale of 0-3), need for rescue antiemetic, complete response, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects were evaluated for up to 48 h following surgery. Results: The overall PONV scores and postoperative nausea score during 0-2 h and 24-48 h were comparable, but PONV scores (P=0.023) and postoperative nausea scores (P=0.010) during 2-24 h were significantly lesser in Group B compared to Group A. There was no statistically significant difference in the postoperative vomiting score or retching during 0-48 h. The amount of first-line rescue antiemetic used during 2-24 h was significantly higher in Group A (56%) than in Group B (31%) (P=0.012; P<0.05). Complete response to the drug during 2-24 h was significantly higher (P=0.023) in Group B (63%) compared to Group A (40%), whereas response was comparable during 0-2 h and 24-48 h. Both groups had comparable incidences of adverse effects and patient satisfaction scores. Conclusion: Palonosetron has superior antinausea effect, less need of rescue antiemetics, and lesser incidence of total PONV in comparison to ondansetron during 2-24 h and comparable effect to ondansetron during the 0-2 h and 24-48 h postoperative periods in high-risk patients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopic surgery.