4.5 Article

Differences in Postoperative Pain, Nausea, and Vomiting After Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy in Premenopausal and Postmenopausal Mexican Women

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 356-361

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06367-y

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that postoperative pain and nausea and vomiting were more common in younger women, who required more analgesics and antiemetics.
Background Postoperative symptoms and pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) are common in women. However, there is no evidence of differences in incidence and severity among different age groups. We evaluated whether adverse postoperative symptoms were more common in younger than in older women after LC. Methods One hundred and fifty premenopausal (mean age 37.6 +/- 3.6 y) and 145 postmenopausal women (59 +/- 5.2 y) were included in this retrospective cohort study. Clinical and anthropometric parameters were analyzed. Study endpoints were the incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and pain, and the additional analgesics and antiemetics needed after surgery. Results Body mass index was normal in 42.7% of patients in the younger group and 64.8% in the older group (P < 0.001). Reported pain was more frequent and intense in the younger group throughout the study period (P < 0.01). Additional narcotics were required in 18% of premenopausal versus 7.6% of postmenopausal women (P = 0.001), and the doses used to reduce pain were higher for premenopausal women (P = 0.02). PONV was more frequent in the younger group at 1 and 6 h after surgery (P < 0.005). Rescue antiemetics were required in 29 premenopausal and 13 postmenopausal women (P = 0.01). Hospital stay was shorter for the older patients (P = 0.01). Minor morbidity was observed in both groups (0.7% and 2.1%). There was no mortality. Conclusions Early PONV and pain after LC were more frequent in premenopausal women, who also required more rescue analgesic and antiemetic medication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据