Retrospective analysis of perioperative ketorolac and postoperative bleeding in reduction mammoplasty.

PURPOSE: We conducted a retrospective review following concerns involving a suspected increase in the requirement for surgical re-exploration for hematoma evacuation when ketorolac was administered perioperatively in patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty. METHODS: Following ethics approval, a retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent reduction mammoplasty at our two institutions from the time ketorolac became available in 2004 until surgeons requested its use discontinued in 2007. The data we collected included patient demographics, ketorolac administration, requirement for surgical re-exploration, documented hematoma formation not requiring surgical re-exploration, and excessive bleeding in the perioperative period. Three hundred and seventy-nine patient records were reviewed; 127 of the patients received a single intravenous dose of ketorolac (15 or 30 mg), and 252 of the patients did not receive ketorolac. RESULTS: Patients who received ketorolac were at an increased risk of requiring surgical re-exploration for hematoma evacuation (relative risk [RR] = 3.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 9.6) and hematoma formation not requiring re-exploration (RR = 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.6). CONCLUSIONS: A single perioperative intravenous dose of ketorolac was associated with a greater than three-fold increase in the likelihood of requirement for surgical hematoma evacuation. Our data suggest that it may be prudent to consider carefully whether the potential risks associated with the use of ketorolac outweigh the potential benefits of using ketorolac in patients undergoing reduction mammoplasty.

Prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting with oral, long-acting dimenhydrinate in gynecologic outpatient laparoscopy.

UNLABELLED: Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as an oral, long-acting (LA) formulation (Gravol L/A) containing 25 mg of immediate and 50 mg of sustained release drug. We designed this double-blind comparison trial to assess the efficacy of dimenhydrinate LA versus droperidol alone and the combination for prophylaxis of nausea, vomiting, and retching in outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. One-hundred-forty-one women were randomized into 3 groups: 1) droperidol (placebo capsule preoperatively and IV droperidol 0.625 mg before induction), 2) dimenhydrinate LA preoperatively and IV placebo before induction, or 3) combination. Information regarding nausea, vomiting, retching, pain, and sedation was recorded in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and collected by telephone for the presence of symptoms: on arrival home; at bedtime; upon arising, and at lunchtime the following day. The overall incidence of complete treatment failure (rescue medication in PACU or nausea, vomiting, or retching at any time point) was 28 of 46 (61%), 28 of 48 (58%), and 22 of 47 (47%); and for treatment failure vomiting (rescue medication in PACU or vomiting or retching at any time point) was 16 of 46 (35%), 11 of 48 (23%), and 5 of 47 (11%), for the droperidol, dimenhydrinate, and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.007 for droperidol versus combination). There were no differences in sedation or pain. Preoperative administration of an oral dose of LA dimenhydrinate in combination with droperidol when compared with droperidol alone effectively reduced the incidence of vomiting but not nausea in women undergoing elective outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy. IMPLICATIONS: Dimenhydrinate is an inexpensive antiemetic with few side effects available as a long-acting oral formulation. Women undergoing outpatient gynecologic laparoscopy were given droperidol, an effective antiemetic, dimenhydrinate alone, or the combination of the two drugs. Dimenhydrinate plus droperidol significantly reduced the overall incidence of vomiting, but not nausea, when compared with droperidol alone.