RESUMO
Background The current research compared the effectiveness of dexamethasone with ondansetron in terms of the frequency of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Methodology A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Surgery, Civil Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, between June 2021 and March 2022. All patients aged between 18 and 70 years who were scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were included in the study. All women who were on antiemetics or cortisone before surgery pregnant, and had hepatic, or renal malfunction were excluded. Group A included patients who were administered 8 mg of dexamethasone intravenously, and group B included patients who were prescribed 4 mg of ondansetron intravenously. Observation of patients was done for any symptoms such as vomiting, nausea, or the need for any antiemetic medication after the surgery. The number of episodes of vomiting and nausea was recorded in the proforma along with the duration of stay in the hospital. Results A total of 259 patients were examined during the study - 129 (49.8%) in the dexamethasone group (group A) and 130 (50.2%) in the ondansetron group (group B). The mean age of group A was 42.56 ± 11.9 years, with a mean weight of 61.4 ± 8.5 kg. The mean age of group B was 41.19 ± 10.8 years, with a mean weight of 62.56 ± 6.3 kg. Upon assessing the effectiveness of each drug in preventing nausea and vomiting, postoperatively, it was found that both drugs were equally effective in preventing nausea in the majority of the patients (73.85% vs. 65.89%; P = 0.162). However, ondansetron was significantly more effective in preventing vomiting in patients than dexamethasone (91.54% vs. 79.07%; P = 0.004). Conclusions This study concluded that the use of either dexamethasone or ondansetron effectively reduces the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, ondansetron was significantly more effective in reducing the incidence of vomiting in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy than dexamethasone.
RESUMO
Introduction Acute appendicitis can lead to perforation which can be lethal. The present study assessed the outcomes of laparoscopic appendectomy versus open appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis. Methodology A comparative study was conducted at the Department of Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (LUMHS), between March 2, 2019 and July 7, 2020. The inclusion criteria consisted of a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Exclusion criteria consisted of intellectual disability hindering the procurement of informed consent, pediatric patients < 15 years of age, patients with an appendicular mass or abscess unsuited for laparoscopic appendectomy, severe sepsis or septic shock on presentation, and pregnant women. Patients were allocated to either open appendectomy (Group A) or laparoscopic appendectomy (Group B). The data gathering proforma recorded demographics, surgical findings, operating room (OR) time, length of inpatient care, requirement of analgesic, and any adverse events following surgery. All of the surgeries were conducted by an experienced surgical consultant with an experience of at least five years. Results A total of 85 patients were included in the laparoscopic appendectomy group, while 101 cases were included in the open appendectomy group. The use of analgesics thrice a day to manage the postoperative pain was significantly associated with the open appendectomy (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the postoperative length of hospitalization was substantially greater in patients who underwent open appendectomy than those who underwent laparoscopic procedure (p < 0.0001). Wound-related complications were considerably lower in patients who had laparoscopic appendectomy as compared to those who had open appendectomy (23.53% versus 40.5%; p = 0.013). Conclusion The length of stay was significantly lower in patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy. Moreover, laparoscopic appendectomy was also associated with a lower rate of wound infection postoperatively, thus giving the former an edge over the latter. Despite the finding that the postoperative pain was not considerably different between the two groups, patients who underwent open appendectomy group required significantly more painkillers to manage the postoperative pain.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Immediate or delayed catheter drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis remains a subject of debate. The present study aimed to evaluate the optimum timing for drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Methods: A prospective, observational study was undertaken at the Department of Surgery, Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences (LUMHS), between 1st March 2018 and 6th July 2020. All patients 18 years or older presenting with acute pancreatitis (AP) in whom necrotizing pancreatitis was confirmed or suspected were enrolled in the study. The exclusion criteria included prior intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Those who were diagnosed with infected necrotizing pancreatitis were labeled as Group A and Group B. Group A patients underwent immediate catheter drainage (within 24 h of admission) while Group B patients underwent delayed drainage (after 24 h). Clinical outcome variables including complication rate, mortality, length of hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were collected in a predefined pro forma. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were enrolled in the study. There were 65 patients in each group. The present study revealed no significant differences in patient outcomes in the immediate drainage group vs. the postponed drainage group. Overall, the mortality rate was 15.38% in Group A while the mortality rate was a little lower in Group B, i.e. 10.77% (p=0.44). The acute onset multiple organ failure was lower in Group A as compared to Group B, however, the difference was statistically insignificant (p=0.08). The rate of wound infection rate was 10.77% and 15.38% in Group A and Group B, respectively (p=0.61). CONCLUSION: In the present study, we failed to find any significant difference between the immediate and postponed drainage group in terms of patient outcome. As per current findings, the timing of drainage did not impact the prognosis of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.
