Skip Navigation LinksHome > November 1995 - Volume 83 - Issue 5 > Effect of Antiemetic Therapy on Recovery and Hospital Discha...
Clinical Investigation

Effect of Antiemetic Therapy on Recovery and Hospital Discharge Time: A Double‐blind Assessment of Ondansetron, Droperidol, and Placebo in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery

Davis, Peter J. MD; McGowan, Francis X. Jr. MD; Landsman, Ira MD; Maloney, Karen RN, BSN; Hoffmann, Paul BS, RPh

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

Collapse Box


Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting continue to be a significant problem for pediatric ambulatory surgery patients. Although ondansetron has been demonstrated to be effective in the prophylactic treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (surrogate end point) no one has demonstrated a benefit of antiemetic therapy on patient recovery, postanesthesia care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay (nonsurrogate end points). In a double‐blind manner, the effects of ondansetron, droperidol, and placebo on the incidence of emesis, postanesthesia care unit stay, and hospital discharge time were evaluated in children undergoing dental surgery.
Methods: The subjects were 102 children aged 2–8 years undergoing complete dental restoration. All patients received midazolam before undergoing inhalational induction of anesthesia with N2 O/O2 and halothane. Anesthesia was maintained with N2 O/O2 and alfentanil. Patients were then randomized to receive ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg), droperidol (75 micro gram/kg), or placebo (normal saline) in a double‐blind fashion. At the conclusion of the anesthesia, a trained nurse observer assessed patient recovery and recorded the time patients met specified criteria for postanesthesia care unit and hospital discharge as well as episodes of emesis in the hospital and at home during the first 24 hr after surgery.
Results: Ninety‐five patients completed the study. The three antiemetic groups were similar with respect to age, weight, length of surgery, dose of alfentanil, and route of preanesthetic medication. The 24‐hr incidence of emesis was significantly less with ondansetron (9%) than with placebo (35%) or droperidol (32%). Ondansetron‐treated patients had significantly shorter hospital stays than droperidol‐treated patients, but recovery parameters were similar between the ondansetron‐and placebo‐treated patients.
Conclusions: Ondansetron is an effective prophylactic antiemetic agent for children undergoing dental surgery. Compared with droperidol, ondansetron decreases the length of hospital stay, but compared to placebo, there were no differences in the patient recovery parameters.
POSTOPERATIVE nausea and vomiting continue to be a significant problem for ambulatory surgical patients and potentially can delay hospital discharge or lead to unexpected hospital admissions and increase hospital cost. [1–4] Although numerous antiemetic therapies have been advocated, they are associated with significant side effects. [5–7] Recently, attention has focused on ondansetron, a selective 5HT3 receptor antagonist, shown in numerous studies to be an effective prophylactic antiemetic agent for both adult and pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgical procedures considered at increased risk for postoperative emesis. [8–13] However, a recent editorial [14] questioned a specific measure of efficacy as a surrogate end point for other factors that determine a drug's utility. Evaluation of nonsurrogate end points may provide insight into the cost effectiveness of various therapeutic regimens. We evaluated, in a double‐blind manner, the antiemetic effects of a single dose of ondansetron in children receiving an opioid‐based anesthetic and compared its antiemetic effects with those of droperidol and placebo. We also determined the effects of emesis and prophylactic antiemetics on the patient's recovery from anesthesia, and length of stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and the hospital.
Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods and Materials

This study was approved by the Human Rights Committee at the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and written informed parental consent was obtained. One hundred two patients aged 2–8 years (ASA physical status 1 and 2) undergoing dental surgery, including complete oral restorations and extractions, were randomly assigned to one of three groups using a computer‐generated random number code. All patients were premedicated with either intranasal (0.2–0.3 mg/kg; maximum dose 5 mg) or oral (0.5 mg/kg; maximum dose 15 mg) midazolam. Anesthesia was induced with N2 O/O2 and halothane by mask. After an intravenous catheter had been inserted, atropine (10 micro gram/kg) and atracurium (0.5 mg/kg) were administered to facilitate nasotracheal intubation and to control ventilation. After tracheal intubation, patients received either droperidol (75 micro gram/kg), ondansetron (100 micro gram/kg), or normal saline intravenously. The study drugs were prepared by the hospital pharmacy in specially labeled syringes and the drugs were diluted in normal saline such that an equal volume per body weight of the study drug was intravenously administered to each patient. Throughout the study, both patients and investigators were blinded to the patient's antiemetic treatment group. After the study drug was administered, the halothane was discontinued and anesthesia was maintained with N2 O/O2 in a 70: 30 mixture and alfentanil 100 micro gram/kg bolus and 2.5 micro gram *symbol* kg sup ‐1 *symbol* min sup ‐1 continuous infusion.
Vital sign increases more than 20% of baseline values (i.e., those values obtained on admission to the hospital) were treated with up to three incremental bolus doses of alfentanil (7–10 micro gram/kg). If vital sign changes were not controlled after 3 bolus doses administered over a 5‐min period, the infusion was increased by 0.5 micro gram *symbol* kg sup ‐1 *symbol* min sup ‐1 to a maximum of 4.0 micro gram *symbol* kg sup ‐1 *symbol* min sup ‐1. Decreases in vital signs to less than 80% of the baseline value were treated by decreasing the infusion in decrements of 0.5 micro gram *symbol* kg sup ‐1 *symbol* min sup ‐1. If, after 20 min at a steady infusion rate, there was no significant hemodynamic change, the alfentanil infusion was decreased until some hemodynamic response to the surgical stimulation was noted.
During the anesthesia, any patient whose heart rate decreased by more than 25% of the baseline value was given 0.1 mg of intravenous atropine. Atracurium was administered as needed during the operative procedure. Intravenous fluid management consisted of administration of lactated Ringer's solution in which fluid deficits were corrected over the first 2 hr and maintenance fluids were administered according to body weight.
In all patients, neuromuscular blockade was antagonized with neostigmine and atropine and assessed by neuromuscular monitoring of the train‐of‐four ratio. No patient in either group received local anesthesia for nerve blocks. In all patients, ventilation was controlled and end‐tidal CO2 was maintained between 35–40 mmHg. The alfentanil infusion was discontinued 10 min before the end of surgery and at the conclusion of surgery the stomach was suctioned via an oral gastric tube. Following the discontinuation of the anesthetic agents, a trained nurse observer blinded to the study drug administration assessed patient recovery and the incidence of postoperative emesis. The times from cessation of the anesthetic until the patient first responded (opened eyes or made purposeful movements) and met specified criteria for discharge from the recovery room and the hospital were recorded. Our institution has a two‐stage recovery area. The first stage is in the PACU. Once a patient meets the criteria for discharge from the PACU, the second stage of recovery occurs in the ambulatory surgical unit, which is physically separate from the PACU. The criterion for discharge from the PACU was a score of greater or equal to 8 on our institution's ten‐point PACU score. These criteria have been previously reported. [15] The criteria for hospital discharge were discharge from the PACU and the ability of the child to drink fluids once in the ambulatory unit. The nurse observer continuously monitored each patient in the PACU and ambulatory units. She also recorded the incidence of emesis in the PACU and ambulatory units, and telephoned the parents 24 h later to determine the incidence of emesis at home.
An episode of vomiting was defined as expulsion of any stomach contents through the mouth. An episode of retching (i.e., dry heaves) was an attempt to vomit that is not productive of any stomach contents. An emetic episode was defined as a single vomit or retch or any number of continual vomits and/or retches. Continual vomiting and/or retching was defined as two or more vomits and/or retches that occur within 1 min of each other. Patients were administered rescue antiemetic medication, when medically indicated, if three emetic episodes occurred within a 15‐min period, or at physician discretion, or at any time on patient or parent request. The choice of rescue antiemetic medication was left to the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. Because nausea is difficult to quantify in children, it was not assessed.
Fisher's exact test, analysis of variance with the Student Newman Keuls Test for post hoc analysis and nonparametric equivalents were used to analyze the data statistically. Significance was considered for P < 0.05.
Back to Top | Article Outline


One hundred two patients were enrolled in the study and 95 patients (droperidol, 28; ondansetron, 33; placebo, 34) completed the study. Seven patients were excluded because four required steroids for excessive uvula edema, and three required naloxone for respiratory depression. Four patients were in the droperidol group, 1 patient in the placebo group, and 2 patients in the ondansetron group. There was no difference in age (mean plus/minus SD; 42 plus/minus 21 vs. 42 plus/minus 14 vs. 44 plus/minus 16 months), weight (15.2 plus/minus 4.0 vs. 15.2 plus/minus 3.4 vs. 15.9 plus/minus 4.6 kg), duration of surgery (107 plus/minus 32 vs. 114 plus/minus 28 vs. 100 plus/minus 29 min), or dose of alfentanil (3.2 plus/minus 0.5 vs. 2.9 plus/minus 1.1 vs. 3.1 plus/minus 1.1 micro gram *symbol* kg sup ‐1 *symbol* min sup ‐1) between the droperidol, ondansetron, and placebo groups, respectively. There was also no difference between the distribution (nasal vs. oral) of midazolam administration or gender among the groups.
Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
The times to patient response, the PACU and hospital discharge times, and the incidence of emesis during the 24‐hr postoperative period are presented in Table 1. Ondansetron significantly reduced the incidence of emesis compared with both droperidol and placebo. Although patients treated with ondansetron had shorter hospital stays than did patients treated with droperidol, no difference in this variable was observed between the ondansetron‐ and placebo‐treated patients. Although the analysis of variance of the PACU data suggested a difference between the groups (p < 0.048), the post hoc analysis did not reveal significant differences between the groups. Table 1 summarizes the occurrence of emesis in those patients who vomited. Of the 24 patients who experienced emesis, 13 patients (54%) had emetic episodes while in the hospital, and 11 patients (46%) had emetic episodes only at home. Of the 95 patients, one patient was readmitted to the hospital because of excessive emesis and dehydration. This patient had received droperidol.
Back to Top | Article Outline


Evidence about the efficacy of antiemetic therapies in children is conflicting. In a preliminary study reporting summary measures of the effectiveness of ondansetron and droperidol obtained by meta‐analysis of 1026 patients in double‐blinded randomized controlled clinical trials, Lopez et al. [16] noted that ondansetron was substantially more effective than droperidol in reducing the incidence of emesis. [16] In a double‐blinded study with 24‐hr postoperative follow‐up of pediatric adenotonsillectomy patients, Furst et al. [8] found that ondansetron significantly decreased the incidence of emesis compared with placebo, droperidol, or metoclopramide. But in another study comparing ondansetron to placebo in children undergoing otolaryngological, dental, and general surgical procedures, Ummenhofer et al. [9] noted that prophylactically administered ondansetron was more effective than placebo in preventing emesis only during the first 4 hr postoperatively; no benefit was apparent from 4 to 24 hr postoperatively. However, none of these reports analyzed the effects of vomiting or its therapy on anesthesia recovery and length of hospital stay.
In the current study, the overall incidence of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients was significantly less with ondansetron than with droperidol (in a dose previously reported in the literature [5] to be effective for postoperative emesis) or placebo. Recovery and length of hospital stay were similar after ondansetron and placebo, but significantly prolonged after droperidol.
Although one might have suspected that decreasing postoperative emesis would have shortened PACU and hospital stays, comparing the placebo to the ondansetron group in the current study does not support this assumption. Why decreasing the incidence of emesis did not result in earlier discharge is unclear. However, this may be explained in part by the lack of a linear relationship of emesis with length of hospital stay and the need for some critical number of vomiting episodes before patient, family, or staff are sufficiently concerned to initiate medical intervention and hence prolong the hospital stay. In addition, approximately 50% of emetic episodes occurred after hospital discharge and therefore, by definition, could not influence length of hospital stay. Further, our requirement that patients drink to be discharged could have masked differences in discharge times between the two groups. Schreiner et al. [17] demonstrated that taking and retaining oral fluids unnecessarily delays hospital discharge. However, if oral fluids had not been a part of our hospital discharge criteria, then patients would have been discharged home based on the PACU discharge criterion. Because both hospital and PACU discharge times were similar between the ondansetron‐ and placebo‐treated groups, it is unlikely that oral fluid administration influenced our discharge times. It could also be argued that we did not use a dose‐response relationship of individual drugs to optimize the results. Had we used larger doses of ondansetron we might have observed a better effect. Although the doses selected for ondansetron and droperidol have been reported to be effective, more recently Watcha has noted ondansetron to be equally effective at lower doses. [18].
Anesthesiologists are and increasingly will be required to evaluate the benefits and costs of the treatments that they provide. Fisher [14] questioned the use of the number of emetic episodes as the major means of evaluating antiemetic treatments and argues that antiemetic efficacy is a "surrogate end point" for other, more meaningful outcome measures such as patient satisfaction and shorter recovery periods, which might "offset the cost of the drug" and therefore justify its use. Unfortunately, satisfaction is hard to assess in infants and young children, simply because most are nonverbal. Further, discomfort ratings accorded by a blinded (adult) observer can be quite different from those reported by the child patient. [19] In this instance, whose version is most accurate? Few people would argue that vomiting after surgery is unpleasant. Adults have indicated that their major preoperative concern is postoperative nausea and vomiting,* and a recent report by Watcha et al., [18] notes that satisfaction scores were significantly better for parents whose children did not have postoperative emesis than for those whose children did have emesis. It thus would seem that vomiting might also be an important concern for children.
As rising medical costs add to our financial concerns and cause us to question the adequacy of drug efficacy and safety as the sole end points by which therapies are evaluated, cost‐effectiveness analysis has become another important method with which to assess the appropriateness of the usage of certain drugs. [20–25] However, some limitations are posed by assumptions implicit in financial approaches to medical therapy analysis. In this study, it may be incorrect to assume that medical interventions that allow for fewer emetic episodes automatically equate to reduced costs. Although patients in our study were evaluated continuously by a blinded nurse observer who had no clinical responsibilities for patient care, it is likely that in daily clinical practice, without continuous evaluation of patient readiness, PACU and hospital discharge times are more likely affected by the vagaries of such factors as discharge protocols and staff availability than by the typically small differences produced by different drug regimens. The nonpharmaceutical monetary cost of postoperative nausea and vomiting mainly relates to nursing care, but whether or not emesis increases nursing time and expense is unknown. For cancer chemotherapy, nursing costs constitute a small fraction of the total cost of the management of emesis. In fact, for chemotherapy patients, management of nausea and vomiting consumed relatively small amounts of hospital resources but incurred considerable costs to the patients and their families. [26] Costs to patients and families may be even more relevant for ambulatory pediatric surgery after which parents assume a large share of the child's postoperative care and consequent costs. In addition, as parents become educated to the self‐limited nature of postoperative emesis and as parents feel more comfortable caring for the child at home (rather than in the hospital) the length of hospital stay may be further reduced. Thus, measures that improve the child's well‐being may be difficult to quantify financially especially when partial costs of the child's care are already being shifted to the family.
Cost‐effectiveness analyses are unquestionably important and need to become a standard component of anesthesia practice. Nevertheless, in pediatric settings, where patient satisfaction may be difficult to assess and where parents assume more patient care responsibility, the outcome of such cost‐effectiveness analyses must be critically assessed and weighed against what common sense and surrogate end points tell us is the right thing to do for our patients.
In summary, compared with droperidol and placebo, ondansetron reduced the 24‐hr incidence of emesis in children after dental surgery. Length of stay in children receiving ondansetron was decreased compared with those receiving droperidol, but not compared with those receiving placebo.
The authors thank student nurse anesthetists Lori Bonello, Karen Galante, and Buffie Shanley, for their help in intraoperative management and in the postoperative assessment of the patients; Laura Dillman, for secretarial support; and Lisa Cohn, for editorial assistance.
* Orkin FK: What do patients want?‐‐Preferences for immediate postoperative recovery (abstract). Anesth Analg 74:S225, 1992.
Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Kapur PA: Editorial: The big "little problem." Anesth Analg 73:243-245, 1991.

2. Patel RI, Hannallah RS: Anesthetic complications following pediatric ambulatory surgery: A 3-yr study. ANESTHESIOLOGY 69:1009-1012, 1988.

3. Gold BS, Kitz DS, Lecky JH, Neuhaus JM: Unanticipated admission to the hospital following ambulatory surgery. JAMA 262:3008-1010, 1989.

4. Cohen MM, Cameron CB, Duncan PG: Pediatric anesthesia morbidity and mortality in the postoperative period. Anesth Analg 70:160-167, 1990.

5. Abramowitz MD, Oh TH, Epstein BS, Ruttiman UE, Friendly DS: The antiemetic effect of droperidol following outpatient strabismus surgery in children. ANESTHESIOLOGY 59:579-583, 1983.

6. Dupre LJ, Stieglitz P: Extrapyramidal syndromes after premedication with droperidol in children. Br J Anaesth 52:831-833, 1980.

7. Bateman DN, Rawlins MD, Simpson JM: Extrapyramidal reactions with metoclopramide. Br Med J 291:930-932, 1985.

8. Furst SR, Rodarte A: Prophylactic antiemetic treatment with ondansetron in children undergoing tonsillectomy. ANESTHESIOLOGY 81:799-803, 1994.

9. Ummenhofer W, Frei FJ, Urwyler A, Kern C, Drewe J: Effects of ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children. ANESTHESIOLOGY 81:804-810, 1994.

10. Litman RS, Wu CL, Catanzaro FA: Ondansetron decreases emesis after tonsillectomy in children. Anesth Analg 78:478-481, 1994.

11. McKenzie R, Kovac A, O'Connor T, Duncalf D, Angel J, Gratz I, Toplin E, McLeskey C, Joslyn A: Comparison of ondansetron versus placebo to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing ambulatory gynecologic surgery. ANESTHESIOLOGY 78:21-28, 1993.

12. Khalil SN, Kataria B, Pearson K, Conahan T, Kallar S, Zahl K, Gillies B, Campbell C, Brahen N, Gilmour I, Templeton D: Ondansetron prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting in women outpatients. Anesth Analg 79:845-851, 1994.

13. Raphael JH, Norton AC: Antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron in laparoscopic surgery: Randomized, double-blind comparison with metoclopramide. Br J Anaesth 71:845-848, 1993.

14. Fisher DM: Surrogate end points. Are they meaningful? ANESTHESIOLOGY 81:795-796, 1994.

15. Davis PJ, Cohen IT, McGowan FX, Jr, Latta K: Recovery characteristics of desflurane versus halothane for maintenance of anesthesia in pediatric ambulatory patients. ANESTHESIOLOGY 80:298-302, 1994.

16. Lopez A, Mathieu A: Effectiveness of droperidol (D) and ondansetron (O) for the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV) in pediatric patients. A meta analysis (MA) (abstract). ANESTHESIOLOGY 81:A1351, 1994.

17. Schreiner MS, Nicolson SC, Martin T, Whitney L: Should children drink before discharge from day surgery? ANESTHESIOLOGY 76:528-533, 1992.

18. Watcha MF, Bras PJ, Cieslak GD, Pennant JH: The dose-response relationship of ondansetron in preventing postoperative emesis in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. ANESTHESIOLOGY 82:47-52, 1995.

19. Beyer JE, McGrath PJ, Berde CB: Discordance between self-report and behavioral pain measures in children aged 3 to 7 years after surgery. J Pain Symptom Manage 5:350-356, 1990.

20. Bulpitt CJ, Fletcher AE: Measuring costs and financial benefits in randomized controlled trials. Am Heart J 119:766-771, 1990.

21. Detsky AS, Naglie IG: A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 113:147-154, 1990.

22. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP: Decision analysis. N Engl J Med 316:250-258, 1987.

23. White PF, Watcha MF: Are new drugs cost-effective for patients undergoing ambulatory surgery? Anesthesiology 78:2-5, 1993.

24. Johnstone RE, Martinec CL: Costs of anesthesia. Anesth Analg 76:840-848, 1993.

25. Watcha MF, Smith I: Cost-effectiveness analysis of antiemetic therapy for ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth 6:370-377, 1994.

26. O'Brien BJ, Rusthoven J, Rocchi A, Latreille J, Fine S, Vandenberg T, Laberge F: Impact of chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting on patients' functional status and on costs: Survey of five Canadian centres. Can Med Assoc J 149:296-302, 1993.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 39 time(s).

Anesthesia and Analgesia
A double-blind comparison of intravenous ondansetron and placebo for preventing postoperative emesis in 1-to 24-month-old pediatric patients after surgery under general anesthesia
Khalil, SN; Roth, AG; Cohen, IT; Simhi, E; Ansermino, JM; Bolos, ME; Cote, CJ; Hannallah, RS; Davis, PJ; Brooks, PB; Russo, MW; Anschuetz, GC; Blackburn, LM
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 101(2): 356-361.

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
Post anaesthesia care unit discharge: A clinical scoring system versus traditional time-based criteria
Truong, L; Moran, JL; Blum, P
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 32(1): 33-42.

Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Adverse outcomes in ambulatory anesthesia
Chung, F; Mezei, G
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 46(5): R18-R26.

Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Cost-effectiveness of inhalational, balanced and total intravenous anaesthesia for ambulatory knee surgery
Alhashemi, JA; Miller, DR; OBrien, HV; Hull, KA
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 44(2): 118-125.

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Ondansetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting: A meta-analysis
Figueredo, ED; Canosa, LG
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 10(3): 211-221.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Recovery characteristics of sevoflurane and halothane in preschool-aged children undergoing bilateral myringotomy and pressure equalization tube insertion
Davis, PJ; Greenberg, JA; Gendelman, M; Fertal, K
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 88(1): 34-38.

British Medical Journal
When placebo controlled trials are essential and equivalence trials are inadequate
Tramer, MR; Reynolds, DJM; Moore, RA; McQuay, HJ
British Medical Journal, 317(): 875-880.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Ondansetron and dolasetron provide equivalent postoperative vomiting control after ambulatory tonsillectomy in dexamethasone-pretreated children
Sukhani, R; Pappas, AL; Lurie, J; Hotaling, AJ; Park, A; Fluder, E
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 95(5): 1230-1235.
Anesthesia and Analgesia
Comparative efficacy and safety of ondansetron, droperidol, and metoclopramide for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis
Domino, KB; Anderson, EA; Polissar, NL; Posner, KL
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 88(6): 1370-1379.

European Journal of Anaesthesiology
Pharmacoeconomics in anaesthesia: what are the issues?
White, PF; Watcha, MF
European Journal of Anaesthesiology, 18(): 10-15.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Quality of emergence from anesthesia and incidence of vomiting with remifentanil in a pediatric population
Pinsker, MC; Carroll, NV
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 89(1): 71-74.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Prophylactic antiemetics for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Ondansetron versus droperidol plus metoclopramide
Steinbrook, RA; Freiberger, D; Gosnell, JL; Brooks, DC
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 83(5): 1081-1083.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
The effect of timing of ondansetron administration on its efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and cost-benefit as a prophylactic antiemetic in the ambulatory setting
Tang, J; Wang, BG; White, PF; Watcha, MF; Qi, JH; Wender, RH
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 86(2): 274-282.

Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus
A comparison of prophylactic ondansetron hydrochloride and droperidol for strabismus repair in adults
Doe, EA; Jones, P; O'Hara, MA
Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology & Strabismus, 35(5): 264-269.

Anasthesiologie Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie
Metaanalysis of randomised controlled studies for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting
Eberhart, LHJ; Morin, AM; Seeling, W; Bothner, U; Georgieff, M
Anasthesiologie Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie, 34(9): 528-536.

Acupuncture versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting - A study of children undergoing dental surgery
Somri, M; Vaida, SJ; Sabo, E; Yassain, G; Gankin, I; Gaitini, LA
Anaesthesia, 56(): 927-932.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
Single-dose ondansetron prevents postoperative vomiting in pediatric outpatients
Patel, RI; Davis, PJ; Orr, RJ; Ferrari, LR; Rimar, S; Hannallah, RS; Cohen, IT; Colingo, K; Donlon, JV; Haberkern, CM; McGowan, FX; Prillaman, BA; Parasuraman, TV; Creed, MR
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 85(3): 538-545.

Assessing the willingness of parents to pay for reducing postoperative emesis in children
Diez, L
Pharmacoeconomics, 13(5): 589-595.

New England Journal of Medicine
Medical progress - Anesthesiology .2
Wiklund, RA; Rosenbaum, SH
New England Journal of Medicine, 337(): 1215-1219.

Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Efficacy, dose-response, and adverse effects of droperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting
Henzi, I; Sonderegger, T; Tramer, MR
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 47(6): 537-551.

Anesthesia and Analgesia
A comparison of costs and efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for elective outpatient gynecologic procedures
Tang, J; Watcha, MF; White, PF
Anesthesia and Analgesia, 83(2): 304-313.

Paediatric Anaesthesia
The addition of antiemetics to the morphine solution in patient controlled analgesia syringes used by children after an appendicectomy does not reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting
Munro, FJ; Fisher, S; Dickson, U; Morton, N
Paediatric Anaesthesia, 12(7): 600-603.

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology-Journal Canadien D Ophtalmologie
Ondansetron for the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting following pediatric strabismus surgery
Caron, E; Bussieres, JF; Lebel, D; Mathews, S; Milot, J; Jacob, JL; Moride, Y; Lortie, L
Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology-Journal Canadien D Ophtalmologie, 38(3): 214-222.

Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs
A systematic review of the antiemetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron compared with droperidol and with metoclopramide in children
Lim, LLY; Dear, KBG; Heller, RF
Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, 16(): 59-70.

British Journal of Anaesthesia
Postoperative nausea and vomiting in paediatric patients
Rose, JB; Watcha, MF
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 83(1): 104-117.

Clinical Pediatrics
Antiemetic use in pediatric gastroenteritis: A national survey of emergency physicians, pediatricians, and pediatric emergency physicians
Kwon, KT; Rudkin, SE; Langdorf, MI
Clinical Pediatrics, 41(9): 641-652.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting
Carlisle, JB; Stevenson, CA
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3): -.
ARTN CD004125
Anasthesiologie & Intensivmedizin
Droperidol compared to 5-HT3-antagonists for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting - A meta-analysis of controlled randomised studies
Eberhart, LHJ; Morin, AM; Bothner, U; Georgieff, M
Anasthesiologie & Intensivmedizin, 42(2): 58-69.

Postoperative symptoms at home following day-case surgery in children: a multicentre survey of 551 children
Kotiniemi, LH; Ryhanen, PT; Valanne, J; Jokela, R; Mustonen, A; Poukkula, E
Anaesthesia, 52(): 963-969.

British Journal of Anaesthesia
Ondansetron compared with metoclopramide in the treatment of PONV
Clyti, N; Diemunsch, P
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 80(3): 407-408.

Presse Medicale
Ambulatory surgery in children: practical aspects for the anesthesist
Geib, I; Nivoche, Y
Presse Medicale, 27(9): 401-405.

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy
ASHP therapeutic guidelines on the pharmacologic management of nausea and vomiting in adult and pediatric patients receiving chemotherapy or radiation therapy or undergoing surgery
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 56(8): 729-764.

Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie
Prophylactic oral dolasetron mesylate reduces nausea and vomiting after abdominal hysterectomy
Warriner, CB; Knox, D; Belo, S; Cole, C; Finegan, BA; Perreault, L
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie, 44(): 1167-1173.

Journal of Clinical Anesthesia
Droperidol-ondansetron combination versus droperidol alone for postoperative control of emesis after total abdominal hysterectomy
Riley, TJ; McKenzie, R; Tantisira, BR; Hamilton, DL
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, 10(1): 6-12.

The Dose-Response Relation and Cost-effectiveness of Granisetron for the Prophylaxis of Pediatric Postoperative Emesis
Cieslak, G; Watcha, M; Phillips, M; Pennant, J
Anesthesiology, 85(5): 1076-1085.

PDF (6967)
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Ambulatory Alveolar Bone Grafting
Perry, CW; Lowenstein, A; Rothkopf, DM
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 116(3): 736-739.
PDF (85) | CrossRef
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA)
An investigation of the effect of ondansetron on time to induction of anaesthesia with thiopentone and propofol
Mansfield, M; Russell, D; Kenny, GN; Kinsella, J
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA), 14(1): 24-28.

Intravenous Ondansetron in Established Postoperative Emesis in Children
Khalil, S; Rodarte, A; Weldon, CB; Weinstein, M; Grunwald, Z; Ginsberg, B; Kaye, R; Otto, A; Wheeler, M; Lawhorn, DC; Prillaman, BA; Creed, M; the S3A-381 Study Group,
Anesthesiology, 85(2): 270-276.

PDF (5096)
Antiemetic Activity of Propofol after Sevoflurane and Desflurane Anesthesia for Outpatient Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Song, D; Whitten, CW; White, PF; Yu, SY; Zarate, E
Anesthesiology, 89(4): 838-843.

PDF (4499)
Back to Top | Article Outline
Anesthesia, outpatient: pediatric; Anesthetics, intravenous: alfentanil; Complications, postoperative: nausea; vomiting; Surgery: dental; Vomiting: antiemetic therapy; incidence

© 1995 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.

Publication of an advertisement in Anesthesiology Online does not constitute endorsement by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc. or Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. of the product or service being advertised.

Article Tools



Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.