Regional anesthesia in postoperative pain management has developed in recent years, especially with the advent of fascial plane blocks. This study aims to compare the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) versus the ultrasound-guided bilateral transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB) on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic or robotic urologic surgery. This was a prospective observational study; 97 patients (ESPB-group) received bilateral ultrasound-guided ESPB with 20 mL of ropivacaine 0.375% plus 0.5 mcg/kg of dexmedetomidine in each side at the level of T7-T9 and 93 patients (TAPB-group) received bilateral ultrasound-guided TAPB with 20 mL ropivacaine 0.375% or 0.25%. The primary outcome was the postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score, which was significantly lower in the ESPB group on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3 (p < 0.001) and, consequently, the number of patients requiring postoperative supplemental analgesic rescue therapies was significantly lower (p < 0.001). Concerning the secondary outcomes, consumption of ropivacaine was significantly lower in the group (p < 0.001) and the total amount of analgesic rescue doses was significantly lower in the ESPB-group than the TAPB-group in postoperative days from 2 to 4 (1 vs. 3, p > 0.001). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was higher in the TAPB group and no block-related complications were observed. Our data indicate that ESPB provides postoperative pain control at least as good as TAPB plus morphine, with less local anesthetic needed.

UNASSIGNED: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the gold standard for the management of symptomatic gallstone disease. The complications related to different pressure ranges of pneumoperitoneum have been studied widely with no definite conclusion till date. The current study was planned to determine the effect of standard versus low pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LPLC) on postoperative abdominal and shoulder tip pain (STP).
UNASSIGNED: The present randomised clinical trial included 84 patients divided into two groups: standard pressure laparoscopic cholecystectomy (SPLC) (13 mmHg) and LPLC (9 mmHg). The variables tested were abdominal pain at 3, 6, 12 and 24 h (by verbal rating scale), the incidence and intensity of STP, post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and surgeon\'s comfort for the two techniques.
UNASSIGNED: The demographic characteristics of patients were similar in both groups. In LPP group, the postoperative abdominal pain at 6, 12 and 24 h was significantly less than SPLC; p = 0.02. Incidence of shoulder pain was significantly less in low pressure group (7.14%) compared with standard pressure (28.57%).
UNASSIGNED: Low-pressure pneumoperitoneum (LPP) is safe and feasible surgery with reduced abdominal and STP.

Despite advances in antiemetics and protocolized postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) management, it remains one of the most common postoperative adverse events. In patients who developed PONV despite antiemetic prophylaxis, giving a rescue treatment from the same class of medication is known to be of limited efficacy. Given the widespread use of 5-HT3 antagonists as PONV prophylaxis, another class of effective intravenous rescue antiemetic is in dire need, especially when prophylaxis fails, and rescue medication is utilized. Dopamine antagonists were widely used for the treatment of PONV but have fallen out of favor due to some of their side effect profiles. Amisulpride was first designed as an antipsychotic medication but was found to have antiemetic properties. Here we will review the historical perspective on the use of dopamine receptor antagonist antiemetics, as well as the evidence on the efficacy and safety of amisulpride.

UNASSIGNED: Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common, undesirable, and stressful following surgery. By focusing attention and resources on those groups of patients most likely to develop PONV, the quality of care provided to the patients can be improved. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of PONV after implementation of the Apfel scoring system with the control group receiving prophylaxis for every surgery. The secondary objective was to identify the effect on the patient\'s expenditure/savings with respect to management of PONV.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective randomized controlled double-blinded study enrolled 70 patients undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia. Patients were randomized to group A (control group - all received PONV prophylaxis) and group B (Apfel stratification performed for PONV prophylaxis). Based on the Apfel system, the risk of PONV was classified as the grades low, moderate, and high risk. Patients at moderate and high risk received PONV prophylaxis in group B. Patients were monitored for PONV during 24 h after surgery and rescue medication given as required. The effect of implementing Apfel risk stratification on the incidence of PONV (primary outcome measure) and on patient expenditure was compared.
UNASSIGNED: Compared to administering prophylaxis for all patients, the incidence of PONV [group A-5 patients (14.3%)] did not increase (P = 0.428) after implementing the Apfel scoring system [group B-2 patients (5.7%)]. The number of patients spending on prophylaxis for PONV in group A [35 (100%)] was higher than that in group B [17 (48%)], without increasing expenditure on PONV treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Withholding prophylaxis on the basis of the Apfel scoring system did not increase the incidence of PONV compared to providing prophylaxis for all the patients. The overall cost of prevention and treatment of PONV is less when the Apfel scoring system is used.

UNASSIGNED: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication following surgery. Only a few risk factors have consistently been reported to be independent predictors for PONV.
UNASSIGNED: To report Apfel scores for orthopedic patients then correlate these scores to the number of antiemetics prescribed and subsequently administered in both the perioperative and post operative setting and determine if screening for Apfel scores is beneficial to predict PONV.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective analysis of patients admitted under orthopedic units between 1st July 2020 and 31st July 2020 was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. Patients were screened and allocated an Apfel score and antiemetics agents prescribed and subsequently administered were recorded.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 115 patients were screened for inclusion. Of these 4 patients met this exclusion criteria, resulting in a total sample size of 111 patients. An Apfel score of 2 was reported in 45.0% of patients, followed by 28.8% of patients scoring 3, with 12.6% scoring one. Only 5.4% of patients scored the highest risk of 4, with 8.2% of patients with no Apfel score documented.
UNASSIGNED: Orthopedic patients tend to score 2 or more in their Apfel score placing them at higher risk of postoperative nausea and/or vomiting according to the collectively validated Apfel\'s simplified risk score. There was no statistically significant relationship between the Apfel score and the number of antiemetic agents prescribed or administered from both the perioperative and post-operative setting following orthopedic surgery in this cohort of adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting are the main factors that impair the quality of recovery after surgery. Very few reports have analyzed patient-reported outcomes to investigate the efficacy of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol to alleviate these symptoms after head and neck surgeries with free tissue transfer reconstruction.
METHODS: We investigated post-operative pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting in 47 patients who underwent head and neck surgeries with free tissue transfer reconstruction with enhanced recovery after surgery support between February 2021 and August 2022. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the visual analog scale and Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery-40.
RESULTS: Significant increases in the mean visual analog scale scores for pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting were observed only on post-operative Day 1 compared with preoperative values (pain: 3.19 ± 2.78 vs. 1.96 ± 2.42, P = 0.0408; post-operative nausea and vomiting: 1.52 ± 2.09 vs. 0.54 ± 1.37, P = 0.0194). From post-operative Day 2, there were no significant differences between the pre- and post-operative visual analog scale scores, and no significant increases in the incidences of moderate or severe pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting compared with preoperatively. The Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery-40 score for post-operative pain showed no significant deterioration compared with preoperatively, while the Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery-40 score for post-operative nausea and vomiting showed significant deterioration compared with the preoperative value on post-operative Days 2, 4 and 7.
CONCLUSIONS: The visual analog scale and Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery-40 scores for post-operative pain and visual analog scale score for post-operative nausea and vomiting suggested that the enhanced recovery after surgery strategy favorably controlled pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting after head and neck surgeries with free tissue transfer reconstruction. However, as the post-operative Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery-40 score for post-operative nausea and vomiting was lower than the preoperative value, there is still a need for further improvement of the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway.

The incidence of post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains at about 30% despite all therapeutic efforts to reduce it. The clinical risk factors guiding the prophylactic treatment are well established, but genetic factors associated with PONV remain poorly known. The aim of this study was to explore clinical and genetic factors impacting PONV by performing a genome-wide association study (GWAS) together with relevant clinical factors as covariates, and systematically attempt to replicate previously reported PONV associations. Relevant clinical factors are explored with logistic regression model.
This was an observational case control study in Helsinki University Hospital between 1 August 2006 and 31 December 2010. One thousand consenting women with elevated risk for PONV, undergoing breast cancer surgery with standardised propofol anaesthesia and antiemetics. After exclusions for clinical reasons and failed genotyping, 815 patients were included with 187 PONV cases and 628 controls. Emergence of PONV up to 7th post-operative day was recorded. PONV at 2-24 h after surgery was selected to be the primary outcome. The GWAS explored associations between PONV and 653 034 genetic variants. Replication attempts included 31 variants in 16 genes.
The overall incidence of PONV up to 7th post-operative day was 35%, where 3% had PONV at 0-2 h and 23% at 2-24 h after surgery. Age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists status, the amount of oxycodone used in the post-anaesthesia care unit, smoking status, previous PONV, and history of motion sickness were statistically significant predictive factors in the logistic model. The receiver operating characteristic-area under the curve of 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.79) was calculated for the model. The GWAS identified six variants with suggestive association to PONV (p < 1 × 10-5 ). Of the previously reported variants, association with the DRD2 variant rs18004972 (TaqIA) was replicated (p = .028).
Our GWAS approach did not identify any high-impact PONV susceptibility variants. The results provide some support for a role of dopamine D2 receptors in PONV.

BACKGROUND: Cholinesterase inhibitors, such as neostigmine and edrophonium, commonly used to reverse the residual effects of nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking drugs at the end of surgery are associated with a high rate of residual neuromuscular blockade (NMB). Due to its direct mechanism of action, sugammadex is associated with rapid and predictable reversal of deep NMB. The current analysis compares the clinical efficacy and risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) on using sugammadex or neostigmine for routine NMB reversal in adult and pediatric populations.
METHODS: PubMed and ScienceDirect were searched as the primary databases. Randomized controlled trials comparing sugammadex with neostigmine for routine NMB reversal in adult and pediatric patients have been included. The primary efficacy endpoint was the time from initiation of sugammadex or neostigmine to the recovery of a time-of-four ratio (TOF) ≥ 0.9. PONV events have been reported as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 26 studies have been included in this meta-analysis, 19 for adults with 1574 patients and 7 for children with 410 patients. Sugammadex, when compared to neostigmine, has been reported to take a shorter time to reverse NMB in adults (mean difference = -14.16 min; 95% CI [-16.88, -11.43], P < 0.01), as well as in children (mean difference = -26.36 min; 95% CI [- 40.16, -12.57], P < 0.01). Events of PONV have been found to be similar in both the groups in adults, but significantly lower in children treated with sugammadex, i.e., 7 out of 145 with sugammadex versus 35 out of 145 with neostigmine (odds ratio = 0.17; 95% CI [0.07, 0.40]).
CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex is associated with a significantly shorter period of reversal from NMB in comparison to neostigmine in adult and pediatric patients. Regarding PONV, the use of sugammadex for NMB antagonism may offer a better option for pediatric patients.

Level 1 evidence supports the use of acupuncture/acupressure (A/A) to manage post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study aimed to survey healthcare professionals\' attitudes towards A/A, influencing factors and barriers to implementing this effective non-drug intervention into peri-operative care.
A validated, anonymous survey with 43 questions was emailed or distributed as a hard copy at meetings to anaesthetists, midwives, nurses, obstetricians, gynaecologists and surgeons at a public hospital in Australia. Descriptive data were presented. Influencing factors were explored using chi-square analysis. Multinomial logistical regression was used to identify the influences of confounding factors.
A total of 155 completed surveys were returned, reflecting a response rate of 32%. The majority of participants were female (69%), nurses/midwives (61%) and aged between 20 and 50 years old (76%). Eighty-three percent of respondents considered A/A \'clearly alternative\' medicine or \'neither mainstream nor alternative\'. Eighty-one percent would encourage patients to use acupressure for PONV if it was offered at the hospital. Previous personal use of A/A was the key factor influencing attitudes and openness to clinical use. The key barriers to implementation were perceived lack of evidence and lack of qualified providers and time.
Hospital-based healthcare professionals strongly supported the evidence-based use of A/A for PONV despite considering the therapy to be non-mainstream and having limited A/A education or history of personal use, providing a positive context for an acupressure implementation study. Significant gaps in training and a desire to learn were identified.

UNASSIGNED: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) administration decreases post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but it is a lack of large-scale retrospective cohort study and is unclear whether there is a dose-relationship and optimal dose for antiemetic effects between DEX and PONV. We performed a large-scale retrospective cohort study to explore the optimal dose of intraoperative DEX for antiemetic effects of PONV.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 5,310 patients aged ≥18 who underwent elective thoracic surgery from January 2016 to March 2020 under total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) or combined intravenous and inhalation anesthesia in Henan Provincial People\'s Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups, those who received DEX intraoperatively and those who did not receive DEX. Patients who received DEX after surgery were excluded. Our primary outcomes were the association, the dose-response relationship, and the optimal dose for antiemetic effects between intraoperative DEX and PONV.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 3,878 patients enrolled, 2,553 patients received DEX and 1,325 patients did not receive DEX. The incidence of PONV in patients who received DEX was 21.3%, and the incidence of PONV in patients who did not receive DEX was 46.5% (P = 0.001). After the matched-pairs cohort consisted of 1,325 patients, the incidence of PONV in patients who received DEX was 23.6%, and the incidence of PONV in patients who did not receive DEX was 46.5% (P = 0.001). We analyzed three different models after propensity matching to validate the stability of the prediction model between intraoperative DEX and PONV. A dose-response relationship between intraoperative DEX and PONV was observed. The optimal dose range of intraoperative DEX for antiemetic effects of PONV is 50-100 μg in elective thoracic surgery.
UNASSIGNED: Intraoperative DEX was associated with a decreased incidence of PONV in the large-scale retrospective cohort study. A dose-response relationship between intraoperative DEX and PONV was observed. The optimal dose range of intraoperative DEX for antiemetic effects of PONV is 50-100 μg in elective thoracic surgery.