Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common distressing experience in patients following laparoscopic surgeries. This study was aimed at comparing the efficacies of Ondansetron-Dexamethasone combination with each drug alone as a prophylaxis against PONV in patients after elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy done under general anaesthesia. Materials and methods: Hundred and fifty ASA I and II patients, aged 23 to 65 yrs, were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial to receive one of three treatment regimens: 4 mg Ondansetron (Group O), 8 mg Dexamethasone (Group D) or 4 mg Ondansetron plus 8 mg Dexamethasone (Group OD) (n=50 for each). A standardized balanced general anaesthetic technique was employed. Any episode of PONV and need for rescue antiemetic were assessed at six, 12 and 24 hrs post operation. Complete response was defined as no PONV in 24 hrs and need for rescue antiemetic was considered as failure of prophylaxis. Pain scores, time to first analgesia demand, amount of Meperidine consumption, adverse event(s) and duration of hospital stay were recorded. Results: Complete response occurred in 66.7, 66.0 and 89.4% in Groups O, D and OD respectively. Rescue antiemetics were required in 29.2, 31.9 and 8.5% of patients in Groups O, D, and OD respectively. Significantly high incidence of vomiting and failure of prophylaxis (19.1%) occurred in group D during the first six hrs (P=0.023 versus O & 0.008 versus OD). More frequent antiemetic rescue was required in group O at 6 to 24 hr interval as compared to group OD (P=0.032). Conclusion: Combination of Ondansetron and Dexamethasone is better than each drug alone in preventing PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexamethasone alone is significantly less effective in preventing early vomiting compared to its combination with Ondansetron; whereas Ondansetron alone is less effective against late PONV as compared with combination therapy. Key words: Antiemetic prophylaxis; Dexamethasone; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; Ondansetron; postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) doi: 10.3126/kumj.v6i3.1706 Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2008), Vol. 6, No. 3, Issue 23, 319-328
Background: Regional anaesthetic techniques have benefited those patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries that are deemed high risk to receive general anaesthesia (GA). But spinal anaesthesia (SA) has not been routinely employed as the sole technique for laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC). Objective: This study was conducted to uncover feasibility and safety of SA for conducting LC. Materials and methods: Twelve American Society of Anaesthesiologists' physical status I or II patients undergoing elective LC received SA using 4 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric Bupivacaine mixed with 0.15 mg Morphine. Peri-operative preparations and management were all standardised, with other drugs being only administered to manage anxiety, pain, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, and any adverse event. LC was performed with CO2 pneumoperitoneum maintained at an intra-abdominal pressure of less than 10 mm Hg and with minimal operating table tilt. Peri-operative events, operative difficulty, hospital stay and patient satisfaction were studied. Results: Spinal anaesthesia was adequate for surgery in all but one patient. Intraoperatively, two out of four patients who experienced right shoulder pain received Fentanyl. Two patients were given Midazolam for anxiety and one was given Ephedrine for hypotension. Operative difficulty scores were minimal and surgery in one patient was converted to open cholecystectomy. Postoperatively, pain scores were minimal and no patient demanded opioid. One patient required antiemetic for vomiting and one patient each suffered headache and urinary retention. 11 patients were discharged within 48 hours of surgery and patient satisfaction scores were very good. Conclusion: Spinal anaesthesia with Morphine-mixed hyperbaric Bupivacaine is adequate and safe for elective LC in otherwise healthy patients and minimises postoperative pain and opioid use. Success and safety of this technique, however, necessitates knowledgeable patient, gentle surgical procedure, and co-operation among patient and members of the perioperative care team. Key words: Hyperbaric Bupivacaine; intrathecal Morphine; laparoscopic cholecystectomy; spinal anaesthesia. DOI: 10.3126/kumj.v7i4.2755 Kathmandu University Medical Journal (2009) Vol.7, No.4 Issue 28, 360-368
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to find out if an ultrasound technique has advantages over the conventional landmark technique. METHODS: This is a prospective randomized comparative study on 120 patients requiring central venous cannulation of the right internal jugular vein. The study comprised of two groups: ultrasound and landmark groups, each consisting of 60 patients. The outcome measures were compared between the groups. RESULTS: Cannulation of the internal jugular vein was successful in 58 patients in the ultrasound group and in 53 in the landmark group. The number of attempts was 1.5 (1 - 3) and 2 (1 - 3) in the ultrasound and landmark group respectively (p = 0.001). The time taken for the successful cannulation was 4.9 +/- 1.7 minutes in the ultrasound approach and 8.0 +/- 2.8 minutes in the landmark approach (p = 0.00). The internal jugular vein diameter in the supine position was 11.2 +/- 1.5 mm which increased to 15.04 +/- 1.5 mm with a 15 degrees head-down position in the USG group (p = 0.001). The first attempt success rate was 39/60 (63%) in the ultrasound group and 19/60 (32%) with the landmark technique. The seven (12%) failure cases in the landmark group were rescued by the ultrasound technique. Inadvertent carotid artery puncture occurred in 2/60 (3%) and 6/60 (10%) of patients in the ultrasound and land mark group respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound improves success rate, minimizes cannulation time and complications during internal jugular vein cannulation. It can be employed as a rescue technique in cases of a failed landmark technique. Keywords:cannulation, central, landmark, technique, ultrasound.
Introduction: Spinal anaesthesia, although advantageous for conducting abdominal hysterectomy, is not the first choice amongst surgeons for fear of intra-operative visceral pain. Intrathecal adjuvants may improve quality of spinal anaesthesia. This study aims to compare efficacy of intrathecal Fentanyl and Dexmedetomidine to reduce visceral pain during abdominal hysterectomy performed under spinal anaesthesia. Methods: Sixty women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy for benign indications were randomly assigned to two equal groups in a double-blind fashion. Fentanyl 25 micrograms in group A or Dexmedetomidine 10 micrograms in group B was co-administered with hyperbaric Bupivacaine 15 milligrams for spinal anesthesia. Surgery through Pfannenstiel incision proceeded once sensory block reached eighth thoracic dermatome. The intra-operative visceral pain was assessed using a five-point scale: none, mild, intermediate, severe, and failed spinal anaesthesia. Duration of analgesia and peri-operative events were studied for 24 hours. Chi-square test, Mann-Whitney U-test and Student’s t-test were used for analysis. Level of significance used was P<0.05. Results: Fifty eight participants completed the study. Demographic variables and sensory block were similar between groups. General anaesthesia was not required in both groups. Significantly greater number of patients in group A required medications for visceral pain with Relative Risk of 2.8 (1.16-6.7). Pruritus and shivering occurred significantly higher in group A. Hypotension was significantly higher in group B. Post-operatively, group B patients showed a significantly longer duration of analgesia. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine is better than Fentanyl as an intrathecal adjuvant to spinal anaesthesia in minimizing visceral pain during abdominal hysterectomy and in prolonging post-operative analgesia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.