CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Splinter, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Splinter, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, D. J.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 44, 825-829, Copyright © 1997 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Vomiting after strabismus surgery in children: ondansetron vs propofol

WM Splinter, EJ Rhine and DJ Roberts
Department of Anaesthesia, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Canada. splinter@cheo.on.ca

PURPOSE: To compare the antiemetic efficacy and costs associated with two anaesthetic regimens in children undergoing strabismus surgery. One regimen contained halothane, nitrous oxide and ondansetron, while the other contained propofol and nitrous oxide. METHODS: Three hundred children aged 2-14 yr undergoing strabismus surgery were enrolled into this single-blind, randomized, stratified, blocked study with a balanced design. Anaesthesia was induced by inhalation with halothane/N2O/O2 (Group O) or with 2.5-3.5 mg.kg-1 propofol + 0.5 mg.kg-1 lidocaine i.v. (Group P). Group O patients were administered 0.15 mg.kg-1 ondansetron (maximum dose 8 mg) i.v. and all patients received atropine 20 micrograms.kg-1 i.v. immediately after induction of anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was maintained with N2O and halothane (Group O) or N2O and propofol (Group P). Patients were followed for 24 hr after their operation primarily to assess the incidence of postoperative vomiting. For each case, the costs of the anaesthetic drugs administered and their associated intravenous administration tubing were determined. Drug costs were those prevailing at the study site at the time of the investigation. Fixed costs, such as the cost of the anaesthetic equipment were not assessed. RESULTS: Groups were similar with respect to demographic data. The incidence of vomiting in both groups was 11% while in-hospital and 23% after discharge. Each episode of in-hospital vomiting prolonged discharge by 17 +/- 4 min, P < 0.001. Mean cost per case for anaesthetic drugs was less in Group O, 18 +/- 8 vs 21 +/- 10, CDN$, mean +/- SD, P < 0.01. CONCLUSION: The two methods of antiemetic prophylaxis were equally effective. Propofol-based anaesthesia was more expensive.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
L. H. J. Eberhart, G. Geldner, P. Kranke, A. M. Morin, A. Schauffelen, H. Treiber, and H. Wulf
The Development and Validation of a Risk Score to Predict the Probability of Postoperative Vomiting in Pediatric Patients
Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2004; 99(6): 1630 - 1637.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
L. H. J. Eberhart, A. M. Morin, D. Guber, F. J. Kretz, A. Schauffelen, H. Treiber, H. Wulf, and G. Geldner
Applicability of risk scores for postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults to paediatric patients
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2004; 93(3): 386 - 392.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
M. Friedberg, B. Saffran, T. J. Stinson, W. Nelson, and C. L. Bennett
Evaluation of Conflict of Interest in Economic Analyses of New Drugs Used in Oncology
JAMA, October 20, 1999; 282(15): 1453 - 1457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.