A comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of dexamethasone, ondansetron, and metoclopramide in patients undergoing gynecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are some of the most-common and undesirable adverse effects after surgery performed under general anesthesia. We investigated the prophylactic value of dexamethasone as an alternate to ondansetron or metoclopramide to prevent PONV after gynecologic surgery. MATERIAL/METHODS: One hundred sixty ASA I-II patients scheduled for elective gynecologic surgery were enrolled. Before induction of anesthesia, patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenously dexamethasone (8 mg) in group D, ondansetron (4 mg) in group O, metoclopramide (10 mg) in group M, and saline (2 mL) in group P. Total incidence of nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic requirement, pain scores, and any adverse effects were recorded at 3 observational periods (0-2 hours, 2-12 hours, and 12-24 hours). RESULTS: Total rates of PON, POV, and PONV were significantly higher in group P at 0-2 hours and 2-12 hours compared with group D, O, and M (P<.05). There was no difference in PON, POV, and PONV among D, O, and M groups. None of the groups differed in PONV in the subsequent 12-24 hours. Number of patients requiring rescue antiemetic was significantly higher in group P than the other groups at 0-2 hours (10%, 10%, 15%, and 45% in group D, O, M, and P) (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IV dexamethasone 8 mg significantly reduces the incidence of PONV in gynecologic surgery. At this dosage, dexamethasone is as effective as ondansetron 4 mg and metoclopramide 10 mg, and is more-effective than placebo.

Wound infiltration with bupivacaine and intramuscular diclofenac reduces postoperative tramadol consumption in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy: a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of wound infiltration with bupivacaine and i.m. diclofenac administration on patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) tramadol consumptions and postoperative pain in patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) under general anesthesia. Previous studies have found only limited or no benefits of local anesthetics for postoperative opioid consumption and pain relief after RRP. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, 96 men who underwent RRP were randomized into 2 groups. Each group (n = 48) received either wound infiltration with 0.5% bupivacaine during surgical closure and i.m. 75 mg diclofenac (group BD) or wound infiltration with saline during surgical closure and i.m. saline (group P). PCA with i.v. tramadol was used for postoperative analgesia. PCA tramadol consumptions and pain scores were collected at 1, 2, 6, 12, and 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean cumulative tramadol consumption was significantly lower in group BD (184.43 ± 38.58 mg) compared with group P (269.52 ± 52.46) at 24 hours (P <.001). The pain scores were significantly lower in group BD compared with group P (P <.05). The number of patients who required rescue antiemetic and analgesic was lower in group BD than in group P, revealing a significant difference (P <.05). Patients' satisfaction scores were significantly higher in group BD than in group P (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study demonstrated that wound infiltration with bupivacaine during surgical closure combined with i.m. diclofenac administration might decrease in 24 hours with PCA tramadol consumption in patients who underwent RRP under general anesthesia.

The comparison of the efficacy of scoring systems in organophosphate poisoning.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II scoring systems for organophosphate poisoning (OPP) in an intensive care unit (ICU). The following data were collected on all consecutive patients who were admitted to the ICU between June 1999 and December 2004. Demographic data, GCS, APACHE II and SAPS II scoring systems were recorded. Predicted mortality was calculated using original regression formulas. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was computed with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The sensitivity and specificity for each scoring system were evaluated by calculating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves. The actual mortality in OPP was 21.9%. Predicted mortality by all systems was not significantly different from actual mortality [SMR and 95% CI for GCS: 1.00 (0.65 1.35), APACHE II: 0.87 (0.54-1.03), SAPS II: 1.40 (0.98-1.82)]. The area under the ROC curve for APACHE II is largest, but there is no statistically significant difference when compared with SAPS II and GCS (GCS 0.900 +/- 0.059, APACHE II 0.929 +/- 0.045 and SAPS II 0.891 +/- 0.057). In our ICU group of patients, in predicting the mortality rates in OPP, the three scoring systems, which are GCS, APACHE II and SAPS II, had similar impacts; however, GCS system has superiority over the other systems in being easy to perform, and not requiring complex physiologic parameters and laboratory methods.