Comparison of palonosetron with ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after gynecological laparoscopic surgery

20Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are common complications after anesthesia and surgery. This study was designed to compare the effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in high-risk patients receiving intravenous opioid-based patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Methods: One hundred non-smoking female patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery were randomly assigned into the palonosetron group (n = 50) or the ondansetron group (n = 50). Palonosetron 0.075 mg was injected as a bolus in the palonosetron group. Ondansetron 8 mg was injected as a bolus and 16 mg was added to the IV-PCA in the ondansetron group. The incidences of nausea, vomiting and side effects was recorded at 2 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h, postoperatively. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of PONV during 72 h after operation. However, the incidence of vomiting was lower in the palonosetron group than in the ondansetron group (18% vs. 4%, P = 0.025). No differences were observed in use of antiemetics and the side effects between the groups. Conclusions: The effects of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV were similar in high-risk patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery and receiving opioid-based IV-PCA. © the Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2013.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kim, Y. Y., Moon, S. Y., Song, D. U., Lee, K. H., Song, J. W., & Kwon, Y. E. (2013). Comparison of palonosetron with ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 64(2), 122–126. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2013.64.2.122

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free