Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Which is the Best Dosage for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery?

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
MarcusVin�ciusJardini Barbosa ◽  
FabioXerfan Nahas ◽  
LydiaMasako Ferreira ◽  
Andr�iaBufoni Farah ◽  
RobertaLopes Bariani ◽  
...  
2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Lee Steely ◽  
Donald R. Collins ◽  
Benjamin E. Cohen ◽  
Kim Bass

2018 ◽  
Vol 141 (1) ◽  
pp. 214-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele A. Manahan ◽  
Debra J. Johnson ◽  
Karol A. Gutowski ◽  
Steven C. Bonawitz ◽  
Warren A. Ellsworth ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Vol 97 (5) ◽  
pp. 1075-1081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul F. White ◽  
Tijani Issioui ◽  
Jie Hu ◽  
Stephanie B. Jones ◽  
Jayne E. Coleman ◽  
...  

Background Antiemetic drugs are costly, are associated with variable efficacy, and can produce unwanted side effects when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. This clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation using a ReliefBand to ondansetron (Zofran) when utilized alone or in combination for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after plastic surgery. Methods A single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo- and sham-controlled study design was conducted to compare three prophylactic antiemetic treatment regimens in 120 outpatients undergoing plastic surgery procedures with routine low-dose droperidol prophylaxis: (1) ondansetron (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and a sham ReliefBand; (2) acustimulation (n = 40), 2 ml intravenous saline and an active ReliefBand; and (3) combination (n = 40), 4 mg intravenous ondansetron and an active ReliefBand. The incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting, as well as the need for "rescue" antiemetics, were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. The outcome variables assessed included recovery times, quality of recovery score, time to resumption of normal diet, and patient satisfaction with the prophylactic antiemetic therapy. Results Use of the ReliefBand in combination with ondansetron significantly reduced nausea (20 vs. 50%), vomiting (0 vs. 20%), and the need for rescue antiemetics (10 vs. 37%) compared with ondansetron alone at 24 h after surgery. Furthermore, the ability to resume a normal diet (74 vs. 35%) within 24 h after surgery was significantly improved when the ReliefBand was used to supplement ondansetron (vs. ondansetron alone). Finally, the quality of recovery (90 +/- 10 vs.70 +/- 20) and patient satisfaction (94 +/- 10 vs. 75 +/- 22) scores were significantly higher in the combination group the ondansetron group. There were no significant differences between the ReliefBand and ondansetron when administered as adjuvants to droperidol for antiemetic prophylaxis. Conclusions The ReliefBand compared favorably to ondansetron (4 mg intravenously) when used for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting. Furthermore, the acustimulation device enhanced the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron after plastic surgery.


2005 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 305-311 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Rama-Maceiras ◽  
T. A. Ferreira ◽  
N. Molíns ◽  
Y. Sanduende ◽  
A. P. Bautista ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 135-138
Author(s):  
Gregory W. Pippin ◽  
John Liukkonen ◽  
Michael Garret ◽  
William Silver

Objective: To develop a patient risk stratification algorithm that will reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in an ambulatory plastic surgery practice by increasing the use of prophylactic medications as the risk of PONV increases. Design: Retrospective review of an ambulatory plastic surgery practice before and after a PONV patient risk stratification algorithm was introduced. A patient risk stratification algorithm was developed based on known causes of PONV. Incidence of patients experiencing PONV before and after the introduction of the patient risk stratification algorithm was compared. Results of the study were analyzed with logistic regression. Results: The rate of PONV was 17.7% before the patient risk stratification algorithm was instituted and 4.47% after. This difference is significant (one-sided P value against no difference in true incidence of PONV = .003). A history of PONV and longer lengths of anesthesia were associated with higher likelihoods of PONV (P = .02 and .0056, respectively), and application of our patient algorithm (ie, membership in the study group as opposed to the control group) was associated with a lower likelihood of PONV (P < .001). Conclusion: Patient risk stratification and a multimodality approach to PONV prophylaxis effectively reduce the rate of PONV in an ambulatory plastic surgery practice.


2006 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 249-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Buck ◽  
Thomas Mustoe ◽  
John Kim

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document