Comparison of prophylaxis strategy for postoperative nausea and vomiting and its incidence before and after the implementation of 5-hydroxytryptamine 3 in surgical setting: a single-center, retrospective study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the association between adherence to guideline-recommended risk-based postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, the antiemetics used for PONV prophylaxis, and the incidence of PONV in patients who were underwent general anesthesia before and after 5-HT3 receptor antagonists became available. METHODS: Patients (≥ 20 years old) who were extubated after scheduled surgery and returned to general wards between January 2021 and February 2022 and between June 2022 and July 2023 were included. Risk factors included age < 50, female, motion sickness, nonsmoker, surgical factors, and postoperative opioid use. Two and three or more prophylaxis were recommended for patients with one or two and three or more risk factors, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of patients who received adequate prophylaxis, and the secondary outcomes were antiemetic agents used during anesthesia and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1. PONV was defined as documented PONV or rescue antiemetic administration. RESULTS: From January 2021 to February 2022 and from June 2022 to July 2023, 2342 and 2682 patients were included, respectively. Before ondansetron became available, more D2 receptor antagonists were used (p < 0.001), and after ondansetron became available, both ondansetron (p < 0.001) and propofol (p < 0.001) were given more frequently. Before and after ondansetron became available, the number of patients with adequate prophylaxis was 3.7% and 9.2%, respectively (p < 0.001), and the incidence of PONV on postoperative days 0 and 1 was 44.6% and 44.0%, respectively (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The availability of ondansetron increased the number of patients with adequate PONV prophylaxis, but did not decrease the incidence of PONV.

Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 in patients attending the pain clinic.

PURPOSE: In the cohort of patients attending pain clinic, the primary goal has been shifting from pain reduction to improving activities of daily living and functional status. The 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is one of the useful tools for assessment of functional status across all psychiatric and medical diseases; however, its feasibility, reliability, and validity have not been assessed in these patients. Thus, in this study, we evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients attending the pain clinic at our university hospital. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study including the patients aged 50 years or older who were attending the pain clinic at Nara Medical University between April 2019 and May 2019. Patient-related outcomes including functional status and activities of daily living were assessed with the 12-item WHODAS 2.0, EuroQol-5 dimension 5 levels, and the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index. RESULTS: The response rate was 99.7%. The 12-item WHODAS2.0 had a floor effect but no ceiling effect and its Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.909. The correlation coefficients between the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 score and the EuroQol-5 dimension 5 levels and the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index were -0.66 and -0.67, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 12-item WHODAS 2.0 is a useful measurement tool to assess disability of pain patients with high reliability and validity.

Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-2 in preoperative patients.

PURPOSE: The avoidance of postoperative functional disability is one of the most important concerns of patients facing surgery, but methods to evaluate disability have not been definitively established. The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Japanese version of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule-2 (WHODAS 2.0-J) in preoperative patients. METHODS: Individuals aged ≥55 years who were scheduled to undergo surgery in a tertiary-care hospital in Japan between April 2016 and September 2016 were eligible for enrolment in the study. All patients were assessed preoperatively using the WHODAS 2.0-J, the 8-Item Short Form (SF-8) questionnaire, and the Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology Index (TMIG Index). The feasibility, reliability, and validity of WHODAS2.0-J were evaluated using response rate, Cronbach's alpha (a measure of reliability), and the correlation between the WHODAS 2.0-J and the SF-8 questionnaire and TMIG Index, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 934 patients were enrolled in the study during the study period, of whom 930 completed the WHODAS 2.0-J (response rate 99.5%) preoperatively. Reliability and validity were assessed in the 898 patients who completed all three assessment tools (WHODAS 2.0-J, SF-8 questionnaire, and TMIG Index) and for whom all demographic data were available. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92. The total score of the WHODAS 2.0-J showed a mild or moderate correlation with the SF-8 questionnaire and TMIG Index (r = -0.63 to -0.34). CONCLUSION: The WHODAS 2.0-J is a feasible, reliable, and valid instrument for evaluating preoperative functional disability in surgical patients.