Pharmacotherapy for the Prevention of Chronic Pain after Surgery in Adults: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain can severely impair patient health and quality of life. This systematic review update evaluated the effectiveness of systemic drugs to prevent chronic postsurgical pain. METHODS: The authors included double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials including adults that evaluated perioperative systemic drugs. Studies that evaluated same drug(s) administered similarly were pooled. The primary outcome was the proportion reporting any pain at 3 or more months postsurgery. RESULTS: The authors identified 70 new studies and 40 from 2013. Most evaluated ketamine, pregabalin, gabapentin, IV lidocaine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroids. Some meta-analyses showed statistically significant-but of unclear clinical relevance-reductions in chronic postsurgical pain prevalence after treatment with pregabalin, IV lidocaine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Meta-analyses with more than three studies and more than 500 participants showed no effect of ketamine on prevalence of any pain at 6 months when administered for 24 h or less (risk ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.36 to 1.07]; prevalence, 0 to 88% ketamine; 0 to 94% placebo) or more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.12]; 6 to 71% ketamine; 5 to 78% placebo), no effect of pregabalin on prevalence of any pain at 3 months (risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.10]; 4 to 88% pregabalin; 3 to 80% placebo) or 6 months (risk ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.47 to 1.28]; 6 to 68% pregabalin; 4 to 69% placebo) when administered more than 24 h, and an effect of pregabalin on prevalence of moderate/severe pain at 3 months when administered more than 24 h (risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.68]; 0 to 20% pregabalin; 4 to 34% placebo). However, the results should be interpreted with caution given small study sizes, variable surgical types, dosages, timing and method of outcome measurements in relation to the acute pain trajectory in question, and preoperative pain status. CONCLUSIONS: Despite agreement that chronic postsurgical pain is an important topic, extremely little progress has been made since 2013, likely due to study designs being insufficient to address the complexities of this multifactorial problem.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Gastric Ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have investigated the validity, reliability, and possible clinical impact of gastric ultrasound for the assessment of gastric content at the bedside. In the present study, we examined the accuracy (evaluated as sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios) of point-of-care gastric ultrasound to detect a "full stomach" in a simulated scenario of clinical equipoise. METHODS: After a minimum fasting period of 8 hours, 40 healthy volunteers were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either remain fasted or ingest a standardized quantity of clear fluid or solid. Each subject was randomized twice on 2 independent study sessions at least 24 hours apart. A gastric ultrasound examination was performed by a blinded sonographer following a standardized scanning protocol. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative findings, the result was summarized in a dichotomous manner as positive (any solid or >1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid) or negative (no solid and ≤1.5 mL/kg of clear fluid) for full stomach. RESULTS: Data from 80 study sessions were analyzed. In this simulated clinical scenario with a pretest probability of 50%, point-of-care gastric ultrasound had a sensitivity of 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.925-1.0), a specificity of 0.975 (95% CI, 0.95-1.0), a positive likelihood ratio of 40.0 (95% CI, 10.33-∞), a negative likelihood ratio of 0 (95% CI, 0-0.072), a positive predictive value of 0.976 (95% CI, 0.878-1.0), and a negative predictive value of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.92-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that bedside gastric ultrasound is highly sensitive and specific to detect or rule out a full stomach in clinical scenarios in which the presence of gastric content is uncertain.

Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Harms and benefits of opioids for chronic noncancer pain remain unclear. Objective: To systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of opioids for chronic noncancer pain. Data Sources and Study Selection: The databases of CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, and PsycINFO were searched from inception to April 2018 for RCTs of opioids for chronic noncancer pain vs any nonopioid control. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Paired reviewers independently extracted data. The analyses used random-effects models and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to rate the quality of the evidence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were pain intensity (score range, 0-10 cm on a visual analog scale for pain; lower is better and the minimally important difference [MID] is 1 cm), physical functioning (score range, 0-100 points on the 36-item Short Form physical component score [SF-36 PCS]; higher is better and the MID is 5 points), and incidence of vomiting. Results: Ninety-six RCTs including 26 169 participants (61% female; median age, 58 years [interquartile range, 51-61 years]) were included. Of the included studies, there were 25 trials of neuropathic pain, 32 trials of nociceptive pain, 33 trials of central sensitization (pain present in the absence of tissue damage), and 6 trials of mixed types of pain. Compared with placebo, opioid use was associated with reduced pain (weighted mean difference [WMD], -0.69 cm [95% CI, -0.82 to -0.56 cm] on a 10-cm visual analog scale for pain; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 11.9% [95% CI, 9.7% to 14.1%]), improved physical functioning (WMD, 2.04 points [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.68 points] on the 100-point SF-36 PCS; modeled risk difference for achieving the MID, 8.5% [95% CI, 5.9% to 11.2%]), and increased vomiting (5.9% with opioids vs 2.3% with placebo for trials that excluded patients with adverse events during a run-in period). Low- to moderate-quality evidence suggested similar associations of opioids with improvements in pain and physical functioning compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (pain: WMD, -0.60 cm [95% CI, -1.54 to 0.34 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -0.90 points [95% CI, -2.69 to 0.89 points]), tricyclic antidepressants (pain: WMD, -0.13 cm [95% CI, -0.99 to 0.74 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, -5.31 points [95% CI, -13.77 to 3.14 points]), and anticonvulsants (pain: WMD, -0.90 cm [95% CI, -1.65 to -0.14 cm]; physical functioning: WMD, 0.45 points [95% CI, -5.77 to 6.66 points]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with chronic noncancer pain, evidence from high-quality studies showed that opioid use was associated with statistically significant but small improvements in pain and physical functioning, and increased risk of vomiting compared with placebo. Comparisons of opioids with nonopioid alternatives suggested that the benefit for pain and functioning may be similar, although the evidence was from studies of only low to moderate quality.

Comparative benefits and harms of perioperative interventions to prevent chronic pain after orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is common following musculoskeletal and orthopedic surgeries and is associated with impairment and reduced quality of life. Several interventions have been proposed to reduce CPSP; however, there remains uncertainty regarding which, if any, are most effective. We will perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the comparative benefits and harms of perioperative pharmacological and psychological interventions directed at preventing chronic pain after musculoskeletal and orthopedic surgeries. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to present, without language restrictions. We will include randomised controlled trials that as follows: (1) enrolled adult patients undergoing musculoskeletal or orthopedic surgeries; (2) randomized them to any pharmacological or psychological interventions, or their combination directed at reducing CPSP, placebo, or usual care; and (3) assessed pain at 3 months or more after surgery. Screening for eligible trials, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2.0) will be performed in duplicate and independently. Our main outcome of interest will be the proportion of surgical patients reporting any pain at ≥ 3 months after surgery. We will also collect data on other patient important outcomes, including pain severity, physical functioning, emotional functioning, dropout rate due to treatment-related adverse event, and overall dropout rate. We will perform a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis to determine the relative treatment effects. When possible, the modifying effect of sex, surgery type and duration, anesthesia type, and veteran status on the effectiveness of interventions will be investigated using network meta-regression. We will use the GRADE approach to assess the certainty evidence and categorize interventions from most to least beneficial using GRADE minimally contextualised approach. DISCUSSION: This network meta-analysis will assess the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and psychological interventions directed at preventing CPSP after orthopedic surgery. Our findings will inform clinical decision-making and identify promising interventions for future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023432503.

Combination pharmacotherapy for the treatment of neuropathic pain in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain causes substantial morbidity and healthcare utilization. Monotherapy with antidepressants or anticonvulsants often fails to provide relief. Combining different drugs sometimes provides improved analgesia and/or tolerability. More than half of patients receive 2 or more analgesics, and combination trials continue to emerge. This review comprehensively searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant trials. Included studies are double-blind randomized controlled trials evaluating combinations of 2 or more drugs vs placebo or at least one monotherapy in adults with neuropathic pain. Outcomes included measures of efficacy and adverse effects. Risk of bias was assessed. Meta-analyses compared combination to monotherapy wherever 2 or more similar studies were available. Forty studies (4741 participants) were included. Studies were heterogenous with respect to various characteristics, including dose titration methods and administration (ie, simultaneous vs sequential) of the combination. Few combinations involved a nonsedating drug, and several methodological problems were identified. For opioid-antidepressant, opioid-gabapentinoid, and gabapentinoid-antidepressant combinations, meta-analyses failed to demonstrate superiority over both monotherapies. In general, adverse event profiles were not substantially different for combination therapy compared with monotherapy. Despite widespread use and a growing number of trials, convincing evidence has not yet emerged to suggest superiority of any combination over its respective monotherapies. Therefore, implementing combination therapy-as second- or third-line treatment-in situations where monotherapy is insufficient, should involve closely monitored individual dosing trials to confirm safety and overall added benefit. Further research is needed, including trials of combinations involving nonsedating agents, and to identify clinical settings and specific combinations that safely provide added benefit.

Analgesic effectiveness of dipyrone (metamizol) for postoperative pain after herniorrhaphy: a randomized, double-blind, dose-response study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of non-narcotic analgesics is mostly supported by randomized, placebo-controlled trials with no comparison with ordinary practice. Additionally, systematic reviews of these placebo-controlled trials have failed to determine clinically meaningful dose-response effect. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, patients undergoing elective inguinal, umbilical or epigastric herniorrhaphy under general anesthesia were assigned to receive 15 mg/kg (D15 group) vs. 40 mg/kg (D40 group) of dipyrone intravenously during surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate to severe pain with movement during the recovery room phase. The secondary outcomes were morphine consumption, incidence of vomiting, and Ramsay score (sedation scale). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were enrolled and analyzed for the primary and secondary outcomes. Relative to the D15 group, the D40 group showed a lower incidence of moderate to severe pain in the first 30 minutes (61% and 40%; P value < 0.05); lower cumulative morphine consumption during the recovery period (3.85 vs. 2.55 mg, P value < 0.006) as well as a lower incidence of vomiting (15.8% vs. 2.5%, P value < 0.005). In addition, more cases of sedation were recorded in the D15 group than in the D40 group (17 vs. 10 cases). There were no serious adverse effects attributed to dipyrone in either group. CONCLUSION: This trial shows a dose-response effect of 40 mg/kg over 15 mg/kg of intravenous dipyrone based on better movement-induced pain control, lower morphine consumption and fewer opioid-related side effects.

A comparison between enriched and nonenriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trials of opioids for chronic noncancer pain.

BACKGROUND: An enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) design excludes potential participants who are nonresponders or who cannot tolerate the experimental drug before random assignment. It is unclear whether EERW design has an influence on the efficacy and safety of opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the results from EERW and non-EERW trials of opioids for CNCP. Secondary objectives were to compare weak versus strong opioids, subgroups of patients with different types of pain, and the efficacy of opiods compared with placebo versus other drugs. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched up to July 2009, for randomized controlled trials of any opioid for CNCP. Metaanalyses and meta-regressions were conducted to compare the results. Treatment efficacy was assessed by effect sizes (small, medium and large) and the incidence of adverse effects was assessed by a clinically relevant mean difference of 10% or greater. RESULTS: Sixty-two randomized trials were included. In 61 trials, the duration was less than 16 weeks. There was no difference in efficacy between EERW and non-EERW trials for both pain (P=0.6) and function (P=0.3). However, EERW trials failed to detect a clinically relevant difference for nausea, vomiting, somnolence, dizziness and dry skin/itching compared with non-EERW. Opioids were more effective than placebo in patients with nociceptive pain (effect size=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.72) and neuropathic pain (effect size=0.56, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.73). CONCLUSION: EERW trial designs appear not to bias the results of efficacy, but they underestimate the adverse effects. The present updated meta- analysis shows that weak and strong opioids are effective for CNCP of both nociceptive and neuropathic origin.

Effectiveness of combined haloperidol and dexamethasone versus dexamethasone only for postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk day surgery patients: a randomized blinded trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To examine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol in addition to dexamethasone decreased the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. METHODS: One hundred and sixty nonsmoking women aged between 18 and 50 years receiving a standardized anaesthesia, which included dexamethasone 8 mg at the beginning of cosmetic or ENT surgery, were enrolled. They were randomized to receive either 1.5 mg of haloperidol (dexamethasone-haloperidol group) or placebo (dexamethasone-placebo group) 30 min before the end of surgery. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was assessed by a blinded investigator at 30 min, 2, 6, and 24 h in the postoperative period. Analgesic requirements, eye opening time, and sedation were also assessed. RESULTS: We found no differences in nausea or vomiting at 30 min and 2 h postoperatively; we found no difference in the incidence of nausea between dexamethasone-haloperidol and dexamethasone-placebo groups at 6 h [relative risk (RR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-1.25] and 24 h (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.1), but the cumulative incidence of vomiting in the dexamethasone-haloperidol group was significantly lower at 6 h (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39-1.05) and 24 h (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.86). We found no differences in eye opening time and Ramsay score higher than 2 at 30 min and 2 h after surgery. CONCLUSION: To combine 1.5 mg of haloperidol and 8 mg of dexamethasone reduces the cumulative incidence of postoperative vomiting at 6 and 24 h postoperatively in day patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Lumbar Neuraxial Ultrasound for Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the evidence for preprocedural neuraxial ultrasound as an adjunct to lumbar spinal and epidural anesthesia in adults. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to June 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that reported data answering one or more of the following 3 questions: (1) Does ultrasound accurately identify a given lumbar intervertebral space? (2) Does ultrasound accurately predict the needle insertion depth required to reach the epidural or intrathecal space? (3) Does ultrasound improve the efficacy and safety of spinal or lumbar epidural anesthesia? RESULTS: Thirty-one clinical trials and 1 meta-analysis were included in this review. Data from 8 studies indicate that neuraxial ultrasound can identify a given lumbar intervertebral space more accurately than by landmark palpation alone. Thirteen studies reported an excellent correlation between ultrasound-measured depth and needle insertion depth to the epidural or intrathecal space. The mean difference between the 2 measurements was within 3 mm in most studies. Thirteen RCTs, 5 cohort studies, and 1 meta-analysis reported data on efficacy and safety outcomes. Results consistently showed that ultrasound resulted in increased success and ease of performance. Ultrasound seemed to reduce the risk of traumatic procedures but there was otherwise insufficient evidence to conclude if it significantly improves safety. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant evidence supporting the role of neuraxial ultrasound in improving the precision and efficacy of neuraxial anesthetic techniques. WHAT'S NEW: We know that neuraxial ultrasound is a useful complement to clinical examination when performing lumbar central neuraxial blocks. It provides anatomical information including the depth of the epidural space, the identity of a given intervertebral level, and the location of the midline and interspinous/interlaminar spaces. This information can be used to successfully guide subsequent needle insertion.Since 2010, new data from RCTs and 1 meta-analysis suggest that neuraxial ultrasound increases the success and reduces the technical difficulty of lumbar central neuraxial blocks. Findings from the meta-analysis suggest that neuraxial ultrasound reduces the risk of traumatic procedures, and thus may possibly contribute to the safety of lumbar central neuraxial blocks.

Combination of pregabalin with duloxetine for fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial.

Fibromyalgia is a syndrome characterized by chronic widespread pain and associated with sleep disturbance, depression, fatigue, and cognitive dysfunction. Polypharmacy is commonly used, but supportive evidence is limited. Most fibromyalgia trials focus primarily on pain reduction with monotherapy. This trial compares a pregabalin-duloxetine combination to each monotherapy. Using a randomized, double-blind, 4-period crossover design, participants received maximally tolerated doses of placebo, pregabalin, duloxetine, and pregabalin-duloxetine combination-for 6 weeks. Primary outcome was daily pain (0-10); secondary outcomes included global pain relief, Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, SF-36 survey, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II), adverse events, and other measures. Of 41 participants randomized, 39 completed ≥2 treatments. Daily pain during placebo, pregabalin, duloxetine, and combination was 5.1, 5.0, 4.1, and 3.7, respectively (P < 0.05 only for combination vs placebo, and pregabalin). Participants (%) reporting ≥moderate global pain relief were 18%, 39%, 42%, and 68%, respectively (P < 0.05 for combination vs placebo, pregabalin, and duloxetine). Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire scores were 42.9, 37.4, 36.0, and 29.8, respectively (P < 0.05 for combination vs placebo, pregabalin, and duloxetine). SF-36 scores were 50.2, 55.7, 56.0, and 61.2, respectively (P < 0.05 for combination vs placebo, pregabalin, and duloxetine). Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale scores were 48.9, 35.2, 46.1, and 32.1, respectively (P < 0.05 only for combination vs placebo, and duloxetine). BDI-II scores were 11.9, 9.9, 10.7, and 8.9, respectively (P < 0.05 only for combination vs placebo). Moderate-severe drowsiness was more frequent during combination vs placebo. Combining pregabalin and duloxetine for fibromyalgia improves multiple clinical outcomes vs monotherapy. Continued research should compare this and other combinations to monotherapy for fibromyalgia.

La omisión de la relajación neuromuscular en pacientes ambulatorios que requieren intubación orotraqueal incrementa temporalmente la incidencia de síntomas laríngeos postoperatorios: estudio cuasi-experimental / The avoidance of neuromuscular paralysis in outpatients requiring endotracheal intubation temporarily increases the incidence of postoperative laryngeal symptoms: quasi-experimental study

Introducción. Las técnicas de intubación endotraqueal sin relajación neuromuscular han crecido en popularidad, pero su impacto en unidades quirúrgicas donde existe personal en entrenamiento es desconocido. Objetivo. Evaluar el impacto de omitir la relajación neuromuscular, en términos de incidencia de disfonía y odinofagia, en pacientes sometidos a procedimientos ambulatorios cortos que requieren intubación endotraqueal en una unidad quirúrgica académica universitaria. Método. Estudio cuasi-experimental, no aleatorizado, doble ciego, en pacientes adultos programados para cirugía ambulatoria que requerían intubación endotraqueal. El grupo de no relajación recibió lidocaína (1,5 mg kg-1), propofol (1,5-2 mg kg-1) y remifentanil 4 mcg kg-1, y el grupo de relajación recibió la misma técnica, y se adicionó rocuronio a dosis de 0,3-0,6 mg kg-1. Los desenlaces primarios se evaluaron a los días 1, 3 y 14 postoperatorios. Resultados. Se incluyeron 287 pacientes. El 51,7 % recibió relajante neuromuscular. La incidencia de disfonía fue estadísticamente mayor a las 24 horas en el grupo de no relajante (26 % frente a 15 %; valor p: 0,016); así, no fue significativa a las 72 horas de seguimiento (0,6 % frente a 0 %; valor de p 0,37). No se encontraron diferencias en la incidencia de odinofagia entre los grupos. Los síntomas habían desaparecido en toda la población estudiada a la semana de seguimiento. Conclusiones. Omitir la relajación neuromuscular se asocia con un incremento transitorio de disfonía a las 24 horas del posoperatorio, pero no de odinofagia. No existen diferencias en la incidencia de síntomas laríngeos en 72 horas. La adición de relajante neuromuscular para disminuir la incidencia de disfonía temprana puede estar justificada.

Introduction. Endotracheal intubation without neuromuscular relaxation has become more common, but its impact on surgical units of teaching hospitals is unknown. Objective. To assess the impact of avoiding neuromuscularrelaxation in terms of incidence ofhoarseness and sore throat in ambulatory surgery patients requiring endotracheal intubation in surgical unit of a teaching hospital. Method. A quasi-experimental, non-randomized, double-blind study in adult patients undergoing outpatient surgery requiring endotracheal intubation. The non muscle relaxant group received lidocaine (1.5 mg kg-1), propofol (1.5 - 2 mg kg-1) and remifentanil 4 mcg * kg-1 and the muscle relaxation group received the same technique and rocuronium 0.3 to 0.6 mg * kg-1. The primary outcomes were assessed at days 1, 3 and 14.Results. We enrolled 287 patients, where 51.7 % received rocuronium. The incidence of hoarseness was significantly higher at 24 hours in the nonrelaxant group (26 % vs. 15 %, p value: 0.016) being not significant after 72 hours of follow up (0.6 % vs. 0 %; p: 0.37). We found no differences inthe incidence of sore throat between the groups. All the study patients were asymptomatic at one week. Conclusions. Avoidance of neuromuscular relaxationis associated with a transient (First 24hours) increase in hoarseness after ambulatory surgery, but no difference in sore throat. We found no differences in the incidence of laryngeal symptoms after 72 hours. The addition of musclerelaxant to reduce the incidence of hoarseness can be justified.

Añadir haloperidol a la morfina para la analgesia controlada por el paciente (PCA) reduce náusea y vómito tras una cirugía de corta estancia en el hospital: un ensayo clínico aleatorio, controlado / Adding haloperidol to morphine for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) reduces nausea and vomiting after short stay surgery: randomized, controlled

Background: Morphine Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) increases the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and the effectiveness adding haloperidol is unknown. Methods: 145 women scheduled to undergo short-stay surgery under general anaesthesia were randomly assigned in two groups: One group received 2 mg i.v. of haloperidol 30 minutes before the end of surgery plus 2 mg mixed with 50 mg of morphine for administration via PCA (Group H); the other group received the same analgesic scheme for pain management using two comparable i.v. boluses of saline (Group P). Furthermore, both groups received dexamethasone 4 mg during anaesthesia induction. Ondansetron (4 mg i.v.) was used for antiemetic rescue. significa Participants and outcomes assessors were blinded to group assignment. The primary endpoints were incidence of nausea, vomiting and antiemetic requirements during the first 24 hours after surgery. Secondary endpoints included sedation and morphine requirement. Results: Cumulative data at 24 hours showed that the group H had less nausea (71.2% vs. 20.6%; RR 0.29 [95% CI: 0.17-0.46]) and vomiting (47% vs. 11.8%; RR 0.25; [95% CI: 0.12-0.49]), and required less ondansetron (66.7% vs. 17.7%), but had an increased incidence of sedation (NNH: 3.5; 95% CI, 2.3-6.7). The NNT for Total response (no nausea, no vomiting/retching) was 2.5 (0-2 hours) and 2 (2-24 hours). Conclusion: A bolus of haloperidol 2 mg prior to the end of surgery followed by 2 mg mixed with 50 mg of Morphine for PCA administration can significantly reduce the frequency of PONV but at a cost of increased sedation.

Ketamina y analgesia preventiva en artroplastia primaria de cadera: Un estudio aleatorizado doble ciego / Ketamine and Pre-emptive analgesia in primary Hip Arthroplasty

Ketamina y Analgesia Preventiva, en Artroplastia Primaria de Cadera. Un estudio aleatorizado doble ciego. Evaluar la efectividad de la ketamina como estrategia de analgesia preventiva en artroplastia primaria de cadera, comparada con placebo. Estudio experimental, doble ciego, controlado. Se tomaron cincuenta pacientes sometidos a artroplastia primaria de cadera, bajo anestesia general y manejo del dolor postoperatorio con Morfina en analgesia controlada por el paciente (ACP). Previo a la inducción anestésica se aleatorizan en dos grupos: Grupo K: Ketamina 0,2 mg/Kg IV y Grupo P (Placebo): solución salina. Se administran previo a la incisión quirúrgica. Se toman en el postoperatorio las siguientes mediciones a las 24 horas: Intensidad del dolor, requerimientos analgésicos, frecuencia de nausea y vómito, satisfacción en el manejo. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en los dos grupos respecto a la intensidad del dolor, sin embargo para lograr el alivio del mismo se requirieron mayores dosis de morfina en el Grupo P, lo cual condujo a una frecuencia mayor de nausea y vómito en este último. La ketamina debe ser considerada como una alternativa útil de analgesia preventiva para disminuir el consumo de opioides en el postoperatorio y así mismo disminuir la frecuencia de efectos adversos que de estos últimos se derivan