Objectives To determine whether preoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative vomiting in patients undergoing elective bowel surgery and whether it is associated with other measurable benefits during recovery from surgery, including quicker return to oral diet and reduced length of stay. Design Pragmatic two arm parallel group randomised trial with blinded postoperative care and outcome assessment. Setting 45 UK hospitals. Participants 1350 patients aged 18 or over undergoing elective open or laparoscopic bowel surgery for malignant or benign pathology. Interventions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia compared with standard care. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: reported vomiting within 24 hours reported by patient or clinician. Secondary outcomes: vomiting with 72 and 120 hours reported by patient or clinician; use of antiemetics and postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24, 72, and 120 hours rated by patient; fatigue and quality of life at 120 hours or discharge and at 30 days; time to return to fluid and food intake; length of hospital stay; adverse events. Results 1350 participants were recruited and randomly allocated to additional dexamethasone (n=674) or standard care (n=676) at induction of anaesthesia. Vomiting within 24 hours of surgery occurred in 172 (25.5%) participants in the dexamethasone arm and 223 (33.0%) allocated standard care (number needed to treat (NNT) 13, 95% confidence interval 5 to 22; P=0.003). Additional postoperative antiemetics were given (on demand) to 265 (39.3%) participants allocated dexamethasone and 351 (51.9%) allocated standard care (NNT 8, 5 to 11; P<0.001). Reduction in on demand antiemetics remained up to 72 hours. There was no increase in complications. Conclusions Addition of a single dose of 8 mg intravenous dexamethasone at induction of anaesthesia significantly reduces both the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting at 24 hours and the need for rescue antiemetics for up to 72 hours in patients undergoing large and small bowel surgery, with no increase in adverse events. Trial registration EudraCT (2010-022894-32) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN21973627).

No abstract

The effects of bupivacaine-prilocaine and meperidine-lidocaine combinations (as compared with those of the agents used alone) on the duration of peripheral sensory nerve block were studied with the infraorbital nerve block model (IONB) in the rat, and those on motor block with spinal anesthesia (SA) in the mouse. The duration of bupivacaine-induced IONB was invariably prolonged when prilocaine was included in the solution. When included in 0.125% bupivacaine, 1.0% prilocaine had a slightly less pronounced enhancing effect than 0.5% prilocaine (24-57% vs. 74%-104%, respectively). The duration of IONB with 1.0% prilocaine was significantly reduced (14-37%) by inclusion of 0.125% bupivacaine. In SA, inclusion in 0.125% bupivacaine of prilocaine (0.5% or 1.0%) prolonged motor block by 128% and 192%, respectively. When included in 0.25% bupivacaine, both 0.5% and 1.0% prilocaine significantly reduced the duration of SA, by 42% and 37%, respectively. With one exception, the duration of IONB by meperidine was significantly shortened (< 44%) when lidocaine was included in the solution. In SA, inclusion of 2% lidocaine with 2% meperidine did not affect the duration of meperidine-induced motor block. The duration of SA obtained with the combination of 4% lidocaine and 4% meperidine was 45% shorter than that induced by 4% meperidine alone. The reasons for these variable effects are not clear, but may be due to interaction or antagonism at any of multiple sites.

Forty adult patients scheduled for minor urological surgical procedures were randomly allocated to two equal groups for anaesthesia. One group was administered propofol, a new class of intravenous anaesthetic agents chemically unrelated to the barbiturates, steroid or eugenol agents, the other group was given midazolam, a new short-acting benzodiazepine. In both groups this was followed by fentanyl and nitrous oxide, but in the midazolam group flumazenil, a specific benzodiazepine antagonist, was administered at the end of surgery. Both techniques provided good-quality anaesthesia, and there was no difference in recovery times as judged by the patients’ ability to open their eyes and give their date of birth. However, those who received propofol were able to sit up unaided significantly earlier and also to carry out the Postbox and Letter Deletion Tests significantly faster. After flumazenil reversal there was no significant difference in the sedation score for 30 min, but this was followed by a significant degree of resedation. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and headache were the same in both groups. This study showed propofol to be superior to midazolam followed by flumazenil reversal as the intravenous component of outpatient anaesthesia for minor urological surgical procedures.

No abstract