Exploring the Belly of the Beast: A Systematic Review of Gastrointestinal Symptoms Following Mammoplasty Procedures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mammoplasty, a common cosmetic procedure involving breast augmentation and reduction surgeries, has gained global popularity. Recently, attention has shifted towards understanding the prevalence and significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms following mammoplasty. This systematic review aims to consolidate existing literature to provide a comprehensive overview of the type and frequency of GI problems associated with various mammoplasty procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases was conducted until January 22, 2024, identifying observational and interventional studies examining GI symptoms post-mammoplasty. Inclusion criteria covered human studies, while exclusion criteria ensured specificity. Two independent investigators performed screening, and data extraction included study characteristics, surgical procedures, anesthesia methods, and interventions. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, involving 2,487 subjects, were included in the review. Breast reconstruction emerged as the most studied procedure, followed by breast reduction, augmentation, mastectomy, and breast cancer surgery. Predominant GI symptoms included nausea and vomiting, with varying rates across mammoplasty types. Anesthesia modality influenced symptomatology, with general, local, and combined anesthesia associated with GI disturbances. Antiemetics, notably ondansetron and droperidol, showed variable efficacy. Non-pharmacological approaches, such as preoperative hypnosis, were explored for symptom management. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review reveals insights into GI symptoms post-mammoplasty, emphasizing the common occurrence of symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, alongside less frequent manifestations such as constipation, dry mouth, retching, abdominal pain, and tightness. Variations in symptom prevalence were noted across diverse mammoplasty surgeries, anesthesia methods, and the use of antiemetics, underscoring the complex nature of post-mammoplasty GI disturbances.

[Comparison of different prediction models for the occurrence of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase : A systematic qualitative comparison based on prospectively defined quality indicators]. / Vergleich verschiedener Vorhersagemodelle für das Auftreten von Übelkeit und Erbrechen in der postoperativen Phase : Ein systematischer qualitativer Vergleich anhand prospektiv definierter Qualitätsindikatoren.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic prediction models exist for evaluating the risk of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period (PONV). So far, no systematic comparison of these prognostic scores is available. METHOD: A systematic literature search was carried out in seven medical databases to find publications on prognostic PONV models. Identified scores were assessed against prospectively defined quality criteria, including generalizability, validation and clinical relevance of the models. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 62 relevant publications with a total of 81,834 patients which could be assigned to 8 prognostic models. The simplified Apfel score performed best, primarily because it was extensively validated. The Van den Bosch score and Sinclair score tied for second place. The simplified Koivuranta score was in third place. CONCLUSION: The qualitative analysis highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each prediction system based on predetermined standardized quality criteria.

Effects of opioid-free anaesthesia on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (OFA-PONV trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anaesthesia and is associated with morbidity and prolonged length of stay. Growing evidence suggest that opioid-free general anaesthesia (OFA) may reduce PONV in various surgical settings. We aim to evaluate the efficacy of OFA on the incidence of PONV compared with opioid-based anaesthesia among adults undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. METHODS: This is a prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial comparing OFA and opioid-based anaesthesia for thoracoscopic surgery. A total of 168 adults will be randomised with a 1:1 ratio to receive either opioid-free anaesthesia or opioid-based anaesthesia. The primary outcome will be the incidence of PONV within 24 h after operation. The secondary outcomes will include the severity of PONV, quality of recovery, pain at rest, 6-min walking test, and health-related quality of life after operation. DISCUSSION: The benefit-risk of OFA for patients after operation is contradictory in previous studies, so further study is required. This trial will focus on the effect of OFA on the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery. This trial adopts uniformed PONV and perioperative pain management, standardised randomised and blind, clear-cut inclusion and exclusion criteria, and standardised scales to assess the severity of PONV after surgery, the quality of postoperative recovery, and the health status at 6 months. The findings of this study will help to provide references to promote early recovery of patients after lung surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05411159. Registered on 9 June 2022.

Investigating the Association Between a Risk-Directed Prophylaxis Protocol and Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Validation in a Low-Income Setting.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prevention protocols in low-income countries is not well known. Different surgical procedures, available medications, and co-occurring diseases imply that existing protocols may need validation in these settings. We assessed the association of a risk-directed PONV prevention protocol on the incidence of PONV and short-term surgical outcomes in a teaching hospital in Rwanda. METHODS: We compared the incidence of PONV during the first 48 hours postoperatively before (April 1, 2019-June 30, 2019; preintervention) and immediately after (July 1, 2019-September 30, 2019; postintervention) implementing an Apfel score-based PONV prevention strategy in 116 adult patients undergoing elective open abdominal surgery at Kigali University Teaching Hospital in Rwanda. Secondary outcomes included time to first oral intake, hospital length of stay, and rate of wound dehiscence. Interrupted time series analyses were performed to assess the associated temporal slopes of the outcome before and immediately after implementation of the risk-directed PONV prevention protocol. RESULTS: Compared to just before the intervention, there was no change in the odds of PONV at the beginning of the postintervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05-1.01). There was a decreasing trend in the odds of nausea (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97) per month. However, there was no difference in the incidence of nausea immediately after implementation of the protocol (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.25-3.72) or in the slope between preintervention and postintervention periods (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.60-3.65). In contrast, there was no change in the odds of vomiting during the preintervention period (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.61-1.67) per month. The odds of vomiting decreased at the beginning of the postintervention period compared to just before (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02-0.47; P = .004). Finally, there was a significant decrease in the average time to first oral intake (estimated 14 hours less; 95% CI, -25 to -3) when the protocol was first implemented, after adjusting for confounders; however, there was no difference in the slope of the average time to first oral intake between the 2 periods ( P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: A risk-directed PONV prophylaxis protocol was associated with reduced vomiting and time to first oral intake after implementation. There was no substantial difference in the slopes of vomiting incidence and time to first oral intake before and after implementation.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: risk factors, prediction tools, and algorithms.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting (PONV/PDNV) remain relevant issues in perioperative care. Especially in ambulatory surgery, PONV can prevent discharge or lead to unplanned readmission. RECENT FINDINGS: The evidence for the management of PONV is now quite good but is still inadequately implemented. A universal, multimodal rather than risk-adapted approach for PONV prophylaxis is now recommended. The evidence on PDNV is insufficient. SUMMARY: PDNV management is based primarily on consequent prophylaxis and therapy of PONV.

Study protocol for a randomised, patient- and observer-blinded evaluation of P6 acustimulation for the prevention of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period in patients receiving routine pharmacological prophylaxis (P6NV-Trial).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of pericardium 6 (P6) acupoint stimulation to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) has been proven in several randomised controlled clinical trials. However, little is known about the effectiveness in daily practice and its use in combination with traditional pharmacologic approaches. METHODS: The primary objective of the P6NV study is to determine whether intraoperative acustimulation (acupuncture or acupressure) at the point P6 provides additional benefit when applied along with customary prophylactic intravenous antiemetics administered according to the local standard operating procedures (SOP). The primary endpoint is the incidence and severity of PONV within the first 24 h postoperatively reported with a validated postoperative nausea and vomiting intensity scale. The patient-reported outcome of perioperative quality of life (using the PPP33-questionnaire) and the detection of antiemetic-related side effects as well as the severity of PONV (via a standardised questionnaire) are secondary study objectives. P6NV is a national, multicentre, randomised, prospective, patient- and examiner-blinded interventional study and will be performed on 3500 adult patients with ASA classification I-III undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia and hospitalised for at least 24 h. Participating anaesthesiologists commit themselves to administer customised conventional antiemetic prophylaxis according to the local SOP by signing a statement before randomisation. The intervention group receives bilateral acupuncture or acupressure at P6. The control group receives no intervention. Before extubation, acustimulation is removed. DISCUSSION: Since P6 acustimulation is performed by a wide range of anaesthesiologists receiving written and verbal information on acustimulation beforehand, this trial will provide information on the effectiveness of an ad hoc implementation of P6 stimulation techniques in anaesthesia departments using traditional pharmacologic PONV prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS DRKS00015272 . Registered on August 15, 2018.

Dexamethasone for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting: A randomised dose finding trial.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is widely used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) but little is known about its efficacy for the treatment of established PONV. OBJECTIVE: To test the antiemetic efficacy of intravenous dexamethasone for the treatment of established PONV in adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and to determine whether there is dose-responsiveness. DESIGN: The DexPonv trial is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, dose-finding study. Inclusion of patients was between September 2012 and November 2017. Follow-up for PONV symptoms was for 24 h. Thirty days postoperatively, patients were contacted by study nurses for any information on postoperative bleeding and infection. SETTING: Four public hospitals in Switzerland. PATIENTS: A total of 803 adults scheduled for elective surgery without any antiemetic prophylaxis signed the consent form; 714 were included. Among those, 319 had PONV and 281 patients were eventually randomised (intention to treat population and safety set). The per protocol set consisted of 260 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with PONV symptoms (including retching) were randomised to a single intravenous dose of dexamethasone 3, 6 or 12 mg or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the absence of further nausea or vomiting (including retching), within 24 h after administration of the study drug. RESULTS: Dexamethasone was ineffective during the first 24 h, whatever the dosage, compared to placebo, even when the model was adjusted for known risk factors (P = 0.170). There were no differences in the time to treatment failure or the quality of sleep during the first night. There was a positive correlation between the dose of dexamethasone and blood glucose concentrations (P < 0.001), but not with bleeding risk, wound infections or other adverse effects. CONCLUSION: This randomised trial failed to show anti-emetic efficacy of any of the tested intravenous regimens of dexamethasone for the treatment of established PONV in adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01975727).

Thoracolumbar interfascial plane block for postoperative analgesia in spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Thoracolumbar interfascial plane (TLIP) block has been discussed widely in spine surgery. The aim of our study is to evaluate analgesic efficacy and safety of TLIP block in spine surgery. METHOD: We performed a quantitative systematic review. Randomized controlled trials that compared TLIP block to non-block care or wound infiltration for patients undergoing spine surgery and took the pain or morphine consumption as a primary or secondary outcome were included. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption during 0-24-hour. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, rescue analgesia requirement, and adverse events. RESULT: 9 randomized controlled trials with 539 patients were included for analysis. Compared with non-block care, TLIP block was effective to decrease the opioid consumption (WMD -16.00; 95%CI -19.19, -12.81; p<0.001; I2 = 71.6%) for the first 24 hours after the surgery. TLIP block significantly reduced postoperative pain intensity at rest or movement at various time points compared with non-block care, and reduced rescue analgesia requirement ((RR 0.47; 95%CI 0.30, 0.74; p = 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.58; 95%CI 0.39, 0.86; p = 0.006; I2 = 25.1%). Besides, TLIP block is superior to wound infiltration in terms of opioid consumption (WMD -17.23, 95%CI -21.62, -12.86; p<0.001; I2 = 63.8%), and the postoperative pain intensity at rest was comparable between TLIP block and wound infiltration. CONCLUSION: TLIP block improved analgesic efficacy in spine surgery compared with non-block care. Furthermore, current literature supported the TLIP block was superior to wound infiltration in terms of opioid consumption.

The acupoint herbal plaster for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after PLIF with general anesthesia: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common in posterior lumbar intervertebral fusion (PLIF) patients undergoing general anesthesia. The previous clinical observation has shown that a traditional acupoint herbal plaster (AHP) is beneficial to patients with PONV. This trial aims to assess the effect of the AHP for the prevention and treatment of PONV after PLIF in patients with general anesthesia. METHODS: A multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted. A total of 166 participants will be randomized to either a treatment group receiving an AHP or a control groups receiving an acupoint placebo plaster (APP) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcomes are the first occurrence and frequency of nausea and vomiting. The secondary outcomes include the severity grading of nausea and vomiting using a visual analog scale (VAS) measurement system, quality of life, and serological indicators. The safety evaluation is mainly about adverse events and skin reactions' observation. Assessments will be carried out at the baseline, day 1, and day 2 (the end of the intervention). The central randomization system in the clinical trial ( http://124.205.181.142:8082/xwtf/ ) will be used to conduct random allocation. DISCUSSION: This scientific methodology design of the trial is expected to provide clinical evidence to support the AHP for the prevention and treatment of PONV. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is retrospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ) on 19 April 2018. ID: ChiCTR1800015768.

Efficacy of Preoperative Usage of Dexamethasone in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Control of Nausea and Vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone has been used in surgical patients to decrease nausea, vomiting, and postoperative pain. However, it is not well studied how much dexamethasone complicates glucose control in diabetic patients and whether this leads to poor surgical outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed 256 diabetic patients who underwent elective hip and knee arthroplasty and evaluated the groups that received dexamethasone intraoperatively (201 patients), those who received dexamethasone postoperatively (237 patients), and those who did not receive the steroid intraoperatively (55 patients) and postoperatively (19 patients). RESULTS: 256 diabetic patients were included in the study. The mean age of the group was 68.7 (SD ± 9-10) years. Patients were divided into 123 males (48%) and 133 females (52%). 174 (78%) patients had a total knee replacement operation, and 82 (32%) patients had total hip replacement operation. The mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.728 (SD ± 0.99). The mean ASA score was 2.86 (SD ± 0.38). 201 (78.5%) patients received preoperative or intraoperative dexamethasone, and 237 (92.6%) patients received it postoperatively. The mean blood glucose for all patients raised from 131.9 to 172.2 mg/dL (P = .012) postoperatively, 206.1 mg/dL in the first 24 hours, and 146.2 mg/dL (P = .39) in the second postoperative day. The change was significant in patients who had poorly controlled diabetes (P < .01) preoperatively. There was no significant difference in our study regarding dexamethasone use and effect on postoperative nausea (P = 1.0) and vomiting (P = .52). There was an improvement in pain scores in the patients who received dexamethasone postoperatively which was statistically significant (P = .054). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone use in diabetic patients for control of postoperative nausea and vomiting in those undergoing elective total knee and hip arthroplasty had a negative impact on glycemic control specifically in those with poorly controlled diabetes and should be avoided.

Intravenous Amisulpride Does Not Meaningfully Prolong the QTc Interval at Doses Effective for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are significant issues in surgical patients, and additional treatment options are needed. Dopaminergic antiemetics have been popular for their efficacy, but their use has been limited by safety concerns, especially the potential for torsade de pointes arising from QT interval prolongation. Intravenous (IV) amisulpride, a dopamine D2 and D3 antagonist shown to be effective at preventing and treating PONV at doses of 5 and 10 mg, respectively, has a dose-dependent effect on QT but at 5 mg is not associated with clinically meaningful prolongation of the heart rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval. This study was designed to evaluate the QT effect of a 10-mg dose of amisulpride, alone and when simultaneously coadministered with ondansetron, an antiemetic of a different class, also known to prolong the QT interval. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-period, crossover study, healthy male and female volunteers 18-65 years of age received IV, in a random sequence: (1) amisulpride 10 mg given twice, 2 hours apart; (2) amisulpride 10 mg and ondansetron 4 mg, given simultaneously; and (3) placebo. RESULTS: Thirty subjects were enrolled, and 29 completed all 3 treatment periods. The largest mean placebo-corrected change-from-baseline QT interval corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's formula (QTcF) (ΔΔQTcF) after the first and second amisulpride dose was 5.2 milliseconds (90% confidence interval [CI], 3.53-6.96 milliseconds) and 8.0 milliseconds (90% CI, 5.49-10.58 milliseconds), respectively. After coadministration of amisulpride and ondansetron, the largest mean ΔΔQTcF was 7.3 milliseconds (90% CI, 5.48-9.16 milliseconds). The slope of the amisulpride concentration-change-from-baseline QTcF (ΔQTcF) relationship was 0.006 ms/ng/mL (90% CI, 0.0020-0.0098). No QTc outliers (absolute QTcF value >480 milliseconds or increase from baseline >30 milliseconds) were seen in any period. CONCLUSIONS: A 10-mg dose of IV amisulpride, given alone or in combination with ondansetron, does not have a clinically significant effect on the QT interval.

Impact of opioid-free anesthesia on complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator flap surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

This study measured the number of complications after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction performed under opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) combined with goal-directed fluid therapy or opioid anesthesia with liberal fluid therapy (OA). This retrospective cohort study consisted of 204 patients who underwent DIEP flap reconstruction at AZSint Jan Brugge between April 2014 and March 2019. Primary outcomes were complications, according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the length of hospital stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were flap failure, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), postoperative pain, postoperative opioid consumption, and postoperative skin flap temperature. OFA included a combination of dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, and ketamine without any opioid administered pre- or intraoperatively. OA included a combination of sufentanil and remifentanil. OFA patients received strict goal-directed fluid therapy, whereas OA patients received liberal fluids to maintain perfusion pressure. All patients except 7 (TIVA with remifentanil) received inhalation anesthesia combined with an infusion of propofol. Of the 204 patients, 55 received OFA and 149 received OA. There were no differences in major complications, but fewer minor complications in the OFA group (17.9% vs. 51.4% and P < 0.001). Flap failure occurred in three patients of the OA group. Six patients developed flap thrombosis (five OA patients and one OFA patient). OFA was associated with fewer postoperative opioids, shorter LOS, less PONV, and less pain. In patients without previous nausea, the PONV incidence was higher in the OA group than in the OFA group (12.7% vs. 43.6% and P < 0.001). Patients with previous nausea more frequently required postoperative opioids and had a nausea rate of 60.87%.

A risk score for postoperative nausea and/or vomiting in women undergoing cesarean delivery with intrathecal morphine.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and/or vomiting affects up to 80% of parturients undergoing cesarean delivery, but there is a lack of obstetric-specific risk-prediction models. We performed this study to identify postoperative nausea/vomiting risk factors in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery, formulate an obstetric-specific prediction model (Duke score), and compare its performance against the Apfel score. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of data from two randomized controlled trials studying nausea/vomiting in women undergoing cesarean delivery with intrathecal morphine. Potential risk factors for postoperative nausea/vomiting within 24 h of surgery with univariate associations with P ≤0.20 were considered for inclusion in the multivariable analysis. After identifying the final multivariable model, we derived our Duke score by assigning points to the selected factors. We then tested the association of the Duke and Apfel scores with postoperative nausea and vomiting, and compared the area-under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Analysis included 260 parturients, of whom 146 (56.2%) experienced postoperative nausea/vomiting. Non-smoking during pregnancy (OR 2.29 [95% CI 1.12 to 4.67], P=0.023), and history of postoperative nausea/vomiting after cesarean delivery and/or morning sickness (2.09 [1.12 to 3.91], P=0.021) were independent predictors of postoperative nausea/vomiting and included in the Duke score. Both Duke and Apfel scores trended linearly with postoperative nausea/vomiting risk (Duke P=0.001; Apfel P=0.049) and had comparable areas-under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve (Duke 0.63 [0.57 to 0.70]; Apfel 0.59 [0.52 to 0.65], P=0.155). CONCLUSIONS: Both Duke and Apfel scores exhibited similar but poor predictive performance. Until better tools are developed, routine prophylactic anti-emetics appears to be a reasonable approach in this patient population.

Pain management after ambulatory surgery: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded parallel controlled trial comparing nalbuphine and tramadol.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain in ambulatory surgery is a multifactorial issue affecting patient satisfaction, time of discharge, and rehospitalization. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nalbuphine for the treatment of postoperative pain after ambulatory surgery, relative to tramadol. METHODS: This multi-center, randomized, double blind, and controlled study was conducted at 10 centers. In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 492 ambulatory surgery patients were recruited. These patients had moderate to severe pain after ambulatory surgery, with a visual analogue scale (VAS) score > 3 cm. They were randomly divided into an experimental (n = 248) or control (n = 244) group and treated for analgesia with 0.2 mg/kg of nalbuphine or 2 mg/kg of tramadol, respectively. VAS scores, adverse events, and vital signs of the patients were recorded before administration (baseline; T1); and 30 min (T2), 2 h (T3), 4 h (T4), and 6 h (T5) after administration of analgesia. A decrease in pain intensity of more than 25% compared with the baseline was used as an indicator of analgesic efficacy. The experimental and control groups were compared with regard to this indicator of efficacy at each timepoint. RESULTS: The VAS scores of the experimental and control groups were statistically comparable at timepoints T1-T4. At T5, the VAS scores of the experimental group were significantly lower than that of the control. The pain intensity was significantly higher in the experimental group compared with the control at T2 and T3. Adverse events and vital signs were similar for the two groups at each timepoint. CONCLUSIONS: Nalbuphine can provide effective and safe pain relief in patients after ambulatory surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number is ChiCTR-IOR-16010032 , the date of registration was 2016-11-28.

Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting and Pain After Robotic-Assisted Mitral Valve Repair.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate and clinical factors associated with postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and severe pain after robotic-assisted mitral valve repair. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Major quaternary academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing robotic-assisted mitral valve repair from May 5, 2018 through September 13, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Participant electronic medical records were abstracted for clinical characteristics, PONV within the first 72 postoperative hours, episodes of severe pain (defined as pain score ≥7 using an 11-point numerical pain rating scale), and opioid use within the first 24 postoperative hours. Multivariate analyses were performed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 124 participants, PONV was noted in 83 (67%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 58%-75%) patients and severe pain in 96 (77%, 95% CI 69%-84%) patients. The median (interquartile range) time to PONV was 6.1 (3.7-14.7) hours. After adjusting for age, sex, and duration of surgery, pre-incisional use of methadone was associated with reduced risk for severe pain (odds ratio 0.40 [95% CI 0.16-0.99]; p = 0.048) and a lower 24-postoperative hour opioid requirement (estimate -29.0 mg intravenous morphine equivalents [95% CI -46.7 to -11.3]; p = 0.006). However, methadone was not associated with a reduction of the cumulative opioid dose (intraoperative and 24-hour postoperative opioid dose; p = 0.248). Both severe pain and PONV were associated with longer hospital stay. CONCLUSION: PONV and severe pain are common after robotic-assisted mitral valve repair. Peri-incisional methadone is associated with a modest decrease in the severe pain rate but without a reduction in opioid dose or hospital stay.