地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛相关恶心呕吐的影响

目的　观察地塞米松联合恩丹西酮对手术后病人自控镇痛 (PCA)所致恶心呕吐的防治效果。方法　随机将 2 0 0例在连续硬膜外麻醉下行下肢手术的患者分为四组 :对照 (C)组于手术切皮前 (T1)和手术结束时 (T2 )分别静脉注射生理盐水 2ml;地塞米松 (D)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和生理盐水 2ml;恩丹西酮 (O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射生理盐水 2ml和恩丹西酮4mg ;地塞米松 +恩丹西酮 (D +O)组于T1、T2 时分别注射地塞米松 10mg和恩丹西酮 4mg。术毕均行病人自控静脉芬太尼镇痛 (PCIFA)。观察术后 2 4h内病人镇痛效果、镇静评分和恶心呕吐发生情况。结果　 5例患者因故退出此观察。组间镇痛效果、镇静评分无明显差异。C组恶心呕吐发生率为 5 2 1% ,明显高于D组 (33 3% )和O组 (32 7% ) ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组恶心呕吐发生率为16 0 % ,与C组比较 ,P <0 0 1,与D组和O组比较 ,P <0 0 5 ;各处理组恶心程度均小于对照组 ,P <0 0 5 ;D +O组呕吐程度低于C组 ,P <0 0 5。结论　地塞米松与恩丹西酮单独应用均能有效地减少手术后PCIFA相关的恶心呕吐 ,减轻恶心程度 ;两药联合应用进一步降低患者的恶心呕吐发生率和呕吐的程度     

不同止吐药预防曲马多静脉镇痛后恶心呕吐的疗效观察

目的探讨各种止吐药预防妇科手术后曲马多静脉自控镇痛（PCIA）后恶心呕吐的效果.方法选择ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级、在硬膜外麻醉下行妇科手术病人106例,术毕行曲马多PCIA.随机分成五组：C组（对照组）,不给止吐药;M组,甲氧氯普胺10 mg;O组,恩丹西酮8 mg;N组,欧必亭5 mg;A组,阿扎司琼10 mg,观察术后12、24、36 h病人镇痛效果和恶心呕吐发生情况.结果N组术后12、24和36 h止恶心呕吐作用均明显优于其他四组;各治疗组恶心呕吐发生率在术后12及24 h明显低于对照组（P＜0.01）,N组术后12、24、36 h均显著低于其他组（P＜0.05）.结论欧必亭与恩丹西酮、甲氧氯普胺及阿扎司琼比较,能更有效地防治妇科手术后曲马多PCIA引起的恶心呕吐.     

不同止吐药预防术后PCA恶心呕吐的临床观察

目的　探讨各种止吐药预防术后芬太尼静脉PCA恶心呕吐的效果。方法　选择硬膜外麻醉下行开腹手术患者 83例 ,术毕接PCA泵行芬太尼静脉PCA(PCIFA)。并随机分成四组 ,C组 :不给止吐药 ;M组 :甲氧氯普胺 10mg ;O组 :恩丹西酮 8mg ;N组 :欧必亭 5mg。 结果　N组术后12小时和 2 4小时止恶心、呕吐作用均明显优于其他三组 ;恶心、呕吐发生率O组仅于术后 12小时稍有降低 ,而N组术后 12和 2 4小时下降均明显。结论　欧必亭与恩丹西酮、甲氧氯普胺比较 ,能更有效地防治PCIFA引起的恶心、呕吐     

全凭静脉麻醉妇科腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐的临床观察

目的观察妇科腹腔镜手术患者丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉（TIVA）术后恶心呕吐的发生率。方法138例妇科腹腔镜手术随机分为七氟烷（Sev）组、七氟烷-恩丹西酮（Sev-O）组及丙泊酚TIVA组,每组46例。Sev组和Sev-O组：术中以持续吸入50%N2O和七氟烷维持麻醉,Sev-O组手术结束前30min静脉给予恩丹西酮8mg;TIVA组：术中以丙泊酚、瑞芬太尼靶控输注维持麻醉。记录术后24h内发生恶心呕吐及额外需要止吐药情况。结果TIVA组术后0～2h恶心呕吐发生率[22%（10/46）]低于Sev组[54%（25/46）,χ^2=10.376,P=0.001]和Sev-O组[50%（23/46）,χ^2=7.986,P=0.005]。Sev-O组术后2～6h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[22%（10/46）vs46%（21/46）,χ^2=5.887,P=0.015]。TIVA组术后0～24h恶心呕吐发生率低于Sev组[57%（26/46）vs80%（37/46）,χ^2=6.093,P=0.014）。3组分别有13例（28%）、6例（13%）、6例（13%）术后需要额外止吐药。结论与七氟烷吸入麻醉比较,丙泊酚全凭静脉麻醉可降低妇科腹腔镜手术后恶心呕吐的发生率。     

联合应用曲马多和恩丹西酮减轻腹腔镜胆囊切除术后疼痛和呕吐

目的 探讨联合应用曲马多和恩丹西酮对腹腔镜胆囊切除术后疼痛和恶心呕吐的疗效.方法 :将80例LC病人随机分为治疗组和对照组,每组40例.治疗组联合应用曲马多和恩丹西酮于术后一次性负荷剂量加静脉持续输入,术后24 h内观察疼痛和恶心呕吐的发生情况.结果 :对照组术后疼痛VAS评分30分以上的有28例(占70%),治疗组只有3例(占7.5%)(P<0.001);对照组24例(占60%)病人需应用哌替啶肌注止痛,治疗组只有1例.对照组恶心和呕吐总计31例(占77.5%),治疗组有8例(占20%)(P<0.001).结论 :联合应用曲马多和恩丹西酮能够减轻LC病人术后疼痛和恶心呕吐的发生,值得推广应用.     

恩丹西酮预防妇科手术后恶心呕吐的临床观察

妇科手术100例,分为恩丹西酮组(以下简称恩组)与对照组各50例.均为利多卡因硬膜外阻滞,于切皮前与术毕前恩组静注恩丹西酮共8mg,对照组则注生理盐水4ml.分别在给药前、给药后5、10分钟记录MAP、HR、RR和SpO2,并观察与记录恶心呕吐的程度和次数.结果:恩组恶心发生率18%,无1例呕吐;对照组分别为52%和40%,明显高于恩组(P＜0.05).两组间MAP、HR、RR和SpO2无明显改变.作者认为恩丹西酮能有效地预防妇科手术后的恶心呕吐,对呼吸循环功能无明显影响.     

托烷司琼预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术后病人恶心呕吐的效应

目的评价托烷司琼预防腹腔镜胆囊切除术后病人恶心呕吐的效应。方法择期腹腔镜下行胆囊切除术病人60例，ASAⅠ或Ⅱ级，随机分为对照组和托烷司琼组，每组30例。采用常规的麻醉诱导和维持。术毕托烷司琼组静脉注射托烷司琼2mg（用生理盐水稀释至5ml），对照组给予等量生理盐水。观察术毕～术后24h恶心、干呕和呕吐的发生率，并用评分法（0～10分）评估其程度，记录清醒程度评分及不良反应。结果与对照组相比，托烷司琼组术毕～术后3h恶心、干呕和呕吐发生率及其程度降低，头痛和烦燥发生率降低；术后3～24h干呕发生率及程度降低，恶心程度降低（P〈0．05）；清醒程度评分差异无统计学意义。结论托烷司琼可减少腹腔镜胆囊切除术病人恶心呕吐的发生及并降低其严重程度。     

腹腔镜胆囊手术用异丙酚硫喷妥钠诱导对插管反应和术毕苏醒的比较

腹腔镜胆囊手术用异丙酚硫喷妥钠诱导对插管反应和术毕苏醒的比较蔡惠敏，柏文悦，郑章华腹腔镜胆囊切除术我们采用异丙酚和琥珀胆碱快速诱导气管插管，观察气管插管所引起的心血管反应和术毕苏醒情况并与硫苯妥钠进行比较，现报告如下。资料与方法（一）一般情况男１２例...     

恩丹西酮对乳腺癌根治术后曲马多病人自控静脉镇痛效应的影响

目的 观察恩丹西酮对乳腺癌根治术后曲马多病人自控静脉镇痛(PCIA)疗效的影响。方法 40例ASA Ⅰ～Ⅱ级女性乳腺癌病人,随机分为两组:对照组(不用恩丹西酮)和试验组(用恩丹西酮),每组20例。静吸复合全麻下实施乳腺癌根治术,术毕给负荷量后接PCIA泵。术后4、8、12和24 h进行随访,记录曲马多用量、疼痛评分、镇静评分及恶心呕吐发生情况。结果 术后24 h两组患者心率(HR)、血压(BP)平稳,未见呼吸抑制病例,脉搏氧饱和度(SpO2)均维持在95％以上。试验组曲马多用量在4、8、12 h明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。两组疼痛评分各时点均小于4分,且两组间差异无显著性(P>0.05)。两组均未用其它镇痛药。试验组恶心发生率明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。两组呕吐发生率及镇静评分差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论 曲马多用于乳腺癌根治术后病人自控静脉镇痛效果满意,预防应用恩丹西酮并不能有效地减轻曲马多引起的恶心呕吐,反而减弱其镇痛作用。     

儿童扁桃体摘除术后恩丹西酮与芬太尼联合镇吐镇痛

针对儿童气管插管、静吸复合麻醉下扁桃体及腺样体摘除术后常见恶心、呕吐和伤口痛，我院术后试用恩丹西酮复合芬太尼恒速持续静脉输注镇吐镇痛取得良好效果。     

A randomized comparison of a multimodal management strategy versus combination antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

A multimodal management strategy for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) appears to be superior to single-drug prophylaxis. We tested the hypothesis that a multimodal PONV prophylaxis regimen incorporating total IV anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and a combination of ondansetron and droperidol is more effective than a combination of these antiemetics in the presence of an inhaled anesthetic. Ninety patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized to one of three groups. Group 1 (multimodal group) received TIVA with propofol, droperidol, and ondansetron. Group 2 (combination group) received droperidol and ondansetron with isoflurane and nitrous oxide for the maintenance of anesthesia. Group 3 (TIVA group) received propofol for the induction and maintenance of anesthesia. The complete response rate (no PONV and no rescue antiemetic) at 2 h after surgery was 90%, 63%, and 66% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 2). At 24 h, the complete response rate was 80%, 63%, and 43% in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.05, Group 1 versus Group 3). Patient satisfaction was also greater in the multimodal group than in the other two groups in the postanesthesia care unit (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the multimodal management strategy for PONV was associated with a higher complete response rate and greater patient satisfaction when compared with similar antiemetic prophylaxis with inhaled anesthesia or TIVA with propofol.     

CO2气腹对腹腔镜手术患者血清胃动素浓度的影响

目的 观察CO2气腹对腹腔镜手术患者血清胃动素浓度的影响,以探讨CO2气腹诱发腹腔镜术后高恶心呕吐发生率的机制.方法 全麻下单纯胆囊切除术患者20例,随机分为2组(n=10),开腹胆囊切除术组(Ⅰ组)和腹腔镜胆囊切除术组(Ⅱ组).Ⅰ组分别于术前(T1)、胆囊切除后(T2)、术毕(T3)、术后12 h(T4)及术后24 h(T5)采集静脉血4 ml;Ⅱ组分别于术前(T1)、CO2气腹后25min(T2)、CO2放气后15 min(T3)、术后12 h(T4)及术后24 h(T5)采集静脉血4 ml,测定血清胃动素浓度,观察术后恶心、呕吐的发生情况.结果 与T1时比较,Ⅰ组T3时血清胃动素浓度升高,Ⅱ组T2-4时血清胃动素浓度升高(P＜0.05或0.01);与Ⅰ组比较,Ⅱ组T2-4时血清胃动素浓度升高,T4时恶心、呕吐的发生率升高(P＜0.05或0.01).结论 CO2气腹可引起腹腔镜手术患者术中和术后血清胃动素浓度升高,可能是诱发腹腔镜术后恶心呕吐发生的机制之一.     

Anesthesia for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: comparative evaluation--desflurane/sevoflurane vs. propofol

Laparoscopic techniques, have rapidly increased in popularity because of its various benefits. They are widely used in day-case surgical operations and are extensively published. However, postoperative nausea vomiting (PONV) is a commonly observed phenomenon after laparoscopic procedures. Its occurrence may increase depending on the anesthetic techniques used. Despite the fact that the use of propofol and the new low solubility inhalation anesthetics, lead to faster induction and recovery, their effects on PONV is not sufficiently known. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the effects of various anesthetic drugs on recovery characteristics and PONV. Following informed consent, 300 ASA I-III patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were investigated. Anesthesia was induced by 1.5 microgkg(-1) fentanyl, 0.03 mgkg(-1) midazolam, 1.5 mgkg(-1) propofol and 0.01 mgkg(-1) vecuronium for all patients. Anesthesia was maintained with desflurane in group D (n = 100), sevoflurane in group S (n = 100) and propofol infusion in group P (n = 100), beside 50% N20/O2 ventilation. All patients were given 4 mg ondansetron and 8 mg dexamethazone iv for preventing PONV, ten minutes before the end of surgery. At the end of the operation, times for extubation, eye opening, orientation, sitting and walking, and the need of ondansetrone in post anesthetic care unit, were recorded. Also, PONV was observed and recorded as early period (first 4 hours) and late period (4-24 hours). Extubation and eye opening times were meaningfully lower in group D. However, no significant differences were observed in orientation, sitting and walking times and PONV among the three groups. All patients who had PONV were women. A correlation was found between PONV and body weight. Even though there were no statistically significant differences among the groups regarding PONV, the number of patients who had PONV in group P was lower. Early recovery time was shortest in group D, while delayed recovery time had no differences. It may be said that these anesthetic drugs have no statistically significant difference for PONV and delayed recovery.     

Comparison of analgesics used during balanced anesthesia on the incidence of PONV

BACKGROUND: When we make reference to the quality of anesthesia, we consider three points, early emergence, postoperative pain relief, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Among these, PONV is comparatively neglected. Many analgesics used during anesthesia may cause PONV. METHODS: The incidence of PONV was assessed in 100 surgical patients who had received balanced anesthesia. Anesthesia was induced with propofol, ketamine, midazolam and buprenorphine (Group P), or butorphanol (Group T), and vecuronium was given to facilitate tracheal intubation. The patients received balanced anesthesia with infusion of propofol, ketamine, vecuronium, and either buprenorphine (Group P) or butorphanol (Group T), with nitrous oxide. PONV was recorded for 24 hours postoperatively. RESULTS: Incidences of nausea were 27.1% in Group P and 15.8% in Group T (NS). Incidences of vomiting were 12.5% in Group P and 5.3% in Group T (NS). However, a high incidence of PONV was found in female (42.2%) vs. male (6.2%) (P < 0.01) and in over 25 BMI group (34.5%) vs. under 25 BMI group (15.5%) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The type of analgesics used during balanced anesthesia is not important for development of PONV, but patient's factors, such as gender and BMI, are more closely associated with PONV.     

全凭静脉气管插管全身麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术的临床研究

目的:探讨异丙酚、瑞芬太尼、万可松复合全凭静脉气管插管全身麻醉在腹腔镜胆囊切除术(LC)的临床应用。方法:50例LC患者全部采用异丙酚、瑞芬太尼、万可松复合全凭静脉气管插管全身麻醉。监测麻醉前、诱导后、插管后3min、气腹后10min、拔管前1min、拔管后3min的HR、MAP、SpO2变化,记录患者麻醉后清醒时间以及麻醉中知晓情况。结果:13例患者表现出较明显的心率减慢及血压下降,与透导前有显著改变(P<0.05),气管插管3min后心率、血压多能自动恢复正常,所有患者麻醉维护过程中HR、MAP、SpO2无显著变化(P>0.05)。麻醉后3min内36例(70％)完全清醒,5min内所有患者完全清醒。术后1例(2％)诉术中轻度知晓(P>0.05)。结论:异丙酚、瑞芬太尼、万可松复合全凭静脉气管插管全身麻醉对于LC来说是一种安全、有效、可靠的麻醉方法。     

Efficacy and costs of 3 anesthetic regimens in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with 3 different anesthesia regimens used in gynecologic laparoscopy. DESIGN: This was a randomized, controlled study. SETTING: The study was conducted at a university hospital. PATIENTS: We studied 150 ASA physical status I or II patients, undergoing elective gynecologic laparoscopy with general anesthesia. INTERVENTION: Patients were allocated into the following 3 groups: group P-preoperative placebo tablet, propofol induction, propofol-air/O2 maintenance; group I + O-preoperative 8-mg ondansetron tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance; group I (control)-preoperative placebo tablet, thiopental induction, isoflurane-N2O maintenance. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), number needed to treat to prevent PONV, and the costs of the anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: The frequency of PONV within the 24-hour study period was lowest in group I + O (P, 38%; I + O, 33%; and I, 59%; P < 0.05 I + O vs I). The number needed to treat was 5 in group P and 4 in group I + O, compared with group I. The median costs of anesthetic drugs to prevent PONV in one additional patient were $65 in group P and dollar 68 in group I + O, compared with group I. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in gynecologic laparoscopy, propofol-air/O2 anesthesia alone, and isoflurane-N2O anesthesia combined with an oral 8-mg dose of ondansetron had similar efficacy and costs to prevent PONV. Isoflurane-N2O anesthesia without ondansetron was less expensive, but was also less efficacious.     

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron, propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O. RESULTS: Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.     

Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron,propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron with two different hypnotic drugs (propofol 15 mg, midazolam 1 and 2 mg) for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). METHODS: Four-hundred-and-fifty-three patients scheduled for elective gynaecological or abdominal surgery were enrolled. One-hundred-and-twenty patients (26%) experienced postoperative emesis, and when nausea scores reached 2 or greater on a five-point scale, they were randomized to receive intravenously: propofol 15 mg (1.5 mL) in Group P, midazolam 1 mg in Group M1, midazolam 2 mg in Group M2 and ondansetron 4 mg in Group O. RESULTS: Four patients (13.3%) in Group P, 13 patients (43.3%) in Group M1, five patients (16.6%) in Group M2 and one patient (3.3%) in Group O required a second dose of the study drug. After administration of the study drugs, nausea scores were significantly lower in all groups than before these drugs were given. No patient had a sedation score over 3 (the patients remained awake and/or responded to verbal contact). The sedative effects of midazolam and propofol lasted for a much shorter time than the antiemetic effects of these drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol and midazolam used in subhypnotic doses were as effective as ondansetron in treating PONV in patients undergoing abdominal or gynaecological surgery without untoward sedative or cardiovascular effects.     

Ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone compared for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomies are associated with an appreciably high rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of ondansetron, granisetron, and dexamethasone for the prevention of PONV in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS: A total of 80 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical class I-II patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included in this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study. All patients received a similar standardized anesthesia and operative treatment. Patients were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20 each). Group 1, consisting of control patients, received 0.9% NaCl; group 2 patients received ondansetron 4 mg i.v.; group 3 patients received granisetron 3 mg i.v.; and group 4 patients received dexamethasone 8 mg i.v., all before the induction of anesthesia. Both nausea and vomiting were assessed during the first 24 h after the procedure. RESULTS: The total incidence of PONV was 75% with placebo, 35% with ondansetron, 30% with granisetron, and 25% with dexamethasone. The incidence of PONV was significantly less frequent in groups receiving antiemetics (p < 0.05). The differences between dexamethasone, granisetron, and ondansetron were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. significantly reduced the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dexamethasone 8 mg was as effective as ondansetron 4 mg and granisetron 3 mg, and it was more effective than placebo.