Comparison of recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and gastrointestinal motility with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with desflurane for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled study

Akkurt, B. Cagla Ozbakis; Temiz, Muhyittin; İnanoğlu, Kerem; Aslan, Ahmet; Turhanoglu, Selim; Asfuroğlu, Zeynel Mert; Canbolant, Elif

doi:10.1016/j.curtheres.2009.04.002

Cited by 34 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies with greater precision appear as larger circles. As described below equation (10), the standard error is calculated by dividing the width of the 75% confidence interval by the corresponding inverse of the standard normal distribution. This graph is novel because previous studies did not estimate the standard error of the reduction in variability for each study in which desflurane was compared with sevoflurane and isoflurane.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Meta-analysis of desflurane and propofol average times and variability in times to extubation and following commands

Wachtel

Dexter

Epstein

et al. 2011

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following equation (10), the generalized pivotal statistic for the logarithm of the ratios of the standard deviations 54 is…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-analysis of desflurane and propofol average times and variability in times to extubation and following commands

Wachtel

Dexter

Epstein

et al. 2011

Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A total of 13 trials reported pain intensity at or around 2 h postsurgery, in which 686 patients received anaesthesia using propofol for maintenance, while 668 were given inhalational anaesthesia [10,11,[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Overall, pain scores were not significantly different between experimental groups (Hedge's g (95%CI) À0.120 (À0.415-0.175) (p = 0.425) (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eight studies investigated postoperative nausea and vomiting, with 371 patients receiving propofol and 354 patients receiving inhalational anaesthesia [10,19,20,22,24,25,28,30]. Propofol was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk (95% CI) 0.446 (0.304-0.656) (p < 0.0001) (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of intra‐operative maintenance of general anaesthesia with propofol on postoperative pain outcomes – a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryPropofol is used both for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia. Recent evidence shows that propofol has analgesic properties. This meta-analysis evaluated differences in postoperative analgesia between general anaesthetic maintenance with intravenous propofol and inhalational anaesthetics. Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria and were included. Our outcomes were pain scores 2 and 24 h after surgery. No significant difference in pain scores was found at 2 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) À0.120 (À0.415-0.175) (p = 0.425). Propofol was associated with a statistically significant, albeit marginal, reduction in pain scores 24 h after surgery (Hedge's g (95% CI) À0.134 (À0.248 to À0.021) (p = 0.021). Data were insufficient to allow a meaningful analysis regarding 24-h morphine-equivalent consumption. Propofol was associated with reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk (95%CI) 0.446 (0.304-0.656) (p < 0.0001). In conclusion, this meta-analysis suggests that propofol improves postoperative analgesia compared with inhalational anaesthesia 24 h after surgery, with a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting.

show abstract

“…Because it brings little damage and interference to internal organs and patients can recover quickly afterwards, LC has become the first operation choice for biliary tract diseases. However, the increased excitement of gastrointestinal sympathetic nerves, inhibited gastrointestinal function, and subsequent decreased gastrointestinal peristalsis and tension led by operation anesthesia, peritoneal stimulation, and traction during operation are possible to cause corresponding complications [4][5][6][7][8] . Therefore, it's of great significance to restore gastrointestinal function in promoting the post-operative recovery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of acupoint injection of Neostigmine on gastrointestinal function after cholecystectomy

Qiu

Jiang

2015

J. Acupunct. Tuina. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To observe the effect of acupoint injection with Neostigmine Methylsulfate at Zusanli (ST 36) on gastrointestinal function of patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.Methods: Totally 120 patients undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into an acupoint injection group, a muscular injection group, and a blank control group at 1:1:1 by random number table, 40 cases in each group. The blank control group was intervened by conventional post-operation treatment, the acupoint injection group was by acupoint injection with Neostigmine Methylsulfate 2 mL at bilateral Zusanli (ST 36) in addition to the treatment given to the blank control group, and the muscular injection group was by muscular injection with Neostigmine Methylsulfate 2 mL in addition to the treatment given to the blank control group. The two injection groups both received injection twice a day, totally for 3 d at most. The restored time of bowel sounds, initial flatulence time, defecation time and clinical efficacy were observed. Results: After treatment, there were significant differences in comparing the restored time of bowel sounds among the three groups (F＝17.30, P＜0.05), the acupoint injection group and muscular injection group were significantly different from the blank control group (P＜0.05), and there was a significant difference between the acupoint injection group and muscular injection group (P＜0.05); there were significant differences in comparing the initial flatulence time among the three groups (F＝19.12, P＜0.05), and the acupoint injection group was significantly different from the muscular injection group and the blank control group (P＜0.05); there were significant differences in comparing the initial defecation time among the three groups (χ 2 ＝21.23, P＜0.05), while the difference between the acupoint injection group and muscular injection group was statistically insignificant (P＞0.05). The total effective rate was 87.5% in the acupoint injection group, versus 72.5% in the muscular injection group and 60.0% in the blank control group, and there were significant differences among the three groups (P＜0.05). Conclusion: Acupoint injection with Neostigmine Methylsulfate at Zusanli (ST 36) can shorten the restored time of bowel sounds and flatulence time in patients undergone laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and the efficacy is more significant compared to muscular injection with Neostigmine Methylsulfate.

show abstract

Comparison of recovery characteristics, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and gastrointestinal motility with total intravenous anesthesia with propofol versus inhalation anesthesia with desflurane for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled study

Cited by 34 publications

References 20 publications

Meta-analysis of desflurane and propofol average times and variability in times to extubation and following commands

Meta-analysis of desflurane and propofol average times and variability in times to extubation and following commands

Effects of intra‐operative maintenance of general anaesthesia with propofol on postoperative pain outcomes – a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effect of acupoint injection of Neostigmine on gastrointestinal function after cholecystectomy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About