Mehernoor F. Watcha

Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting

IMPLICATIONSnWe present evidence-based guidelines developed by an international panel of experts for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

The present guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) under the auspices of The Society of Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel critically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. In brief, these guidelines identify risk factors for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic monotherapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis; recommend approaches for treatment of PONV when it occurs; and provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV.

Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Recovery profiles and costs of anesthesia for outpatient unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy

The use of an ilioinguinal-hypogastric nerve block (IHNB) as part of a monitored anesthesia care (MAC) technique has been associated with a rapid recovery profile for outpatients undergoing inguinal herniorrhaphy procedures. This study was designed to compare the cost-effectiveness of an IHNB-MAC technique with standardized general and spinal anesthetics techniques for inguinal herniorrhaphy in the ambulatory setting. We randomly assigned 81 consenting outpatients to receive IHNB-MAC, general anesthesia, or spinal anesthesia. We evaluated recovery times, 24-h postoperative side effects and associated incremental costs. Compared with general and spinal anesthesia, patients receiving IHNB-MAC had the shortest time-to-home readiness (133 ± 68 min vs 171 ± 40 and 280 ± 83 min), lowest pain score at discharge (15 ± 14 mm vs 39 ± 28 and 34 ± 32 mm), and highest satisfaction at 24-h follow-up (75% vs 36% and 64%). The total anesthetic costs were also the least in the IHNB-MAC group (

The Efficacy of Premedication with Celecoxib and Acetaminophen in Preventing Pain After Otolaryngologic Surgery

132.73 ± 33.80 vs

The efficacy of celecoxib premedication on postoperative pain and recovery times after ambulatory surgery: A dose-ranging study

172.67 ± 29.82 and

Postoperative nausea and emesis

164.97 ± 31.03). We concluded that IHNB-MAC is the most cost-effective anesthetic technique for outpatients undergoing unilateral inguinal herniorrhaphy with respect to speed of recovery, patient comfort, and associated incremental costs. Implications Local anesthesia with propofol sedation for inguinal hernia repair was associated with a faster recovery, higher patient satisfaction, and lower costs compared with general and spinal anesthesia.

A comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron versus dolasetron for antiemetic prophylaxis

Non-opioid analgesics are often used to supplement opioids for the management of perioperative pain. In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we examined the effects of acetaminophen and a cyclooxygenase type-2 inhibitor, celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination, before elective otolaryngologic surgery in 112 healthy outpatients. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 4 study groups: Group 1, placebo (vitamin C, 500 mg per os [PO]); Group 2, acetaminophen 2000 mg PO; Group 3, celecoxib 200 mg PO; or Group 4, acetaminophen 2000 mg and celecoxib 200 mg PO. All patients received a standardized anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain was assessed using a 10-point verbal rating scale. Recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, side effects, and patient satisfaction scores were also recorded. The combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain. Celecoxib, when administered alone or in combination with acetaminophen, improved patients’ satisfaction with their postoperative analgesia. With the combination of acetaminophen and celecoxib, an additional expenditure of

Cost-efficacy of Rofecoxib versus Acetaminophen for Preventing Pain after Ambulatory Surgery

6.16 would be required to obtain complete satisfaction with postoperative pain management in one additional patient who would not have been completely satisfied if he/she had received the placebo. However, oral celecoxib or acetaminophen alone was not significantly more effective than placebo in reducing postoperative pain when administered before surgery. We conclude that oral premedication with a combination of acetaminophen (2000 mg) and celecoxib (200 mg) was highly effective in decreasing pain and improving patient satisfaction after outpatient surgery.

Effect of Age and Sedative Agent on the Accuracy of Bispectral Index in Detecting Depth of Sedation in Children

Recently, the Food and Drug Administration increased the celecoxib dosage recommendation from 200 mg to 400 mg for acute pain management. No studies have directly compared the analgesic efficacy of different doses of celecoxib for the prevention of postoperative pain. In this prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we compared oral celecoxib 200 mg to 400 mg when administered for premedication of outpatients undergoing minor ear-nose-throat surgery. A total of 93 healthy outpatients were assigned to 1 of 3 study groups: control (placebo; n = 30), celecoxib 200 mg (n = 30), or celecoxib 400 mg (n = 33). The study drug was given orally 30–45 min before surgery, and all patients received a standardized general anesthetic technique. During the postoperative period, pain scores (0–10), recovery times, the need for rescue analgesics, quality of recovery (0–100), patient satisfaction with pain management (0–100), and side effects were recorded. Pain was assessed at 30-min intervals using a verbal rating scale, with 0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable, in the postanesthesia care unit and day surgery unit recovery areas and at 24 h after surgery. Celecoxib 400 mg was significantly more effective than 200 mg (and placebo) in reducing postoperative pain. Both celecoxib 200 mg and 400 mg were more effective than placebo in reducing the postoperative fentanyl requirement (74 ± 67 &mgr;g and 56 ± 62 &mgr;g versus 120 ± 86 &mgr;g, respectively). The larger dose of celecoxib significantly reduced the percentage of patients with severe pain at discharge (6% versus 37% and 30% in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). The median number of doses of oral analgesic medication after discharge was also significantly reduced in the celecoxib 400 mg group (0 versus 2 and 2 in the celecoxib 200 mg and control groups, respectively). However, no differences were found among the three study groups with respect to recovery times and secondary outcome variables (e.g., patient satisfaction and quality of recovery). We conclude that oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing severe postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the postoperative period. IMPLICATIONS: Oral premedication with celecoxib 400 mg was more effective than 200 mg in reducing postoperative pain and the need for rescue analgesic medication in the early postoperative period. However, neither dose of celecoxib was more effective than a placebo in facilitating the recovery process after outpatient surgery.