4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Ondansetron is no more effective than supplemental intraoperative oxygen for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

期刊

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
卷 92, 期 1, 页码 112-117

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200101000-00022

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM58273] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM058273] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supplemental oxygen maintained during and for 2 h after colon resection halves the incidence of nausea and vomiting. Whether supplemental oxygen restricted to the intraoperative period is sufficient remains unknown. Similarly, the relative efficacy of supplemental oxygen and ondansetron is unknown. We tested the hypothesis that intraoperative supplemental oxygen reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Patients (n = 240) undergoing gynecological laparoscopy were given a standardized isoflurane anesthetic. After induction, they were randomly assigned to the following three groups: routine oxygen administration with 30% oxygen, balance nitrogen (30% Oxygen group), supplemental oxygen administration with 80% oxygen, balance nitrogen (80% Oxygen group), and Ondansetron 8 mg (immediately after induction), combined with 30% oxygen, balance nitrogen (Ondansetron group). The overall incidence of nausea and/or vomiting during the initial 24 postoperative h was 44% in the patients assigned to 30% oxygen and 30% in the Ondansetron group, but only 22% in those given 80% oxygen. The incidence was thus halved by supplemental oxygen and was significantly less than with 30% oxygen. There were, however, no significant differences between the 30% oxygen and ondansetron groups, or between the ondansetron and 80% oxygen groups. We conclude that supplemental oxygen effectively prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynecological laparoscopic surgery; furthermore, ondansetron is no more effective than supplemental oxygen.

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

4.6
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