CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131Anesthesia and Pain ManagementNausea and vomiting managementPain Management and Opioid Use

Postoperative analgesia and vomiting, with special reference to day-case surgery: a systematic review.

Open access
McQuay, Moore·1998·Health Technology Assessment
DOI 10.3310/hta2120
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Day-case surgery is of great value to patients and the health service. It enables many more patients to be treated properly, and faster than before. Newer, less invasive, operative techniques will allow many more procedures to be carried out. There are many elements to successful day-case surgery. Two key components are the effectiveness of the control of pain after the operation, and the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVES: To enable those caring for patients undergoing day-case surgery to make the best choices for their patients and the health service, this review sought the highest quality evidence on: (1) the effectiveness of the control of pain after an operation; (2) the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Full details of the search strategy are presented in the report. RESULTS - ANALGESIA: The systematic reviews of the literature explored whether different interventions work and, if they do work, how well they work. A number of conclusions can be drawn. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INEFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS: There is good evidence that some interventions are ineffective. They include: (1) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain; (2) the use of local injections of opioids at sites other than the knee joint; (3) the use of dihydrocodeine, 30 mg, in acute postoperative pain (it is no better than placebo). RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF DOUBTFUL VALUE: Some interventions may be effective but the size of the effect or the complication of undertaking them confers no measurable benefit over conventional methods. Such interventions include: (1) injecting morphine into the knee joint after surgery: there is a small analgesic benefit which may last for up to 24 hours but there is no clear evidence that the size of the benefit is of any clinical value; (2) manoeuvres to try and anticipate pain by using pre-emptive analgesia; these are no more effective than standard methods; (3) administering non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by injection or per rectum in patients who can swallow; this appears to be no more effective than giving NSAIDs by mouth and, indeed, may do more harm than good; (4) administering codeine in single doses; this has poor analgesic efficacy. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF PROVEN VALUE: These include a number of oral analgesics including (at standard doses): (1) dextropropoxyphene; (2) tramadol; (3) paracetamol; (4) ibuprofen; (5) diclofenac. Diclofenac and ibuprofen at standard doses give analgesia equivalent to that obtained with 10 mg of intramuscular morphine. Each will provide at least 50% pain relief from a single oral dose in patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain. Paracetamol and codeine combinations also appear to be highly effective, although there is little information on the standard doses used in the UK. The relative effectiveness of these analgesics is compared in an effectiveness 'ladder' which can inform prescribers making choices for individual patients, or planning day-case surgery. Dose-response relationships show that higher doses of ibuprofen may be particularly effective. Topical NSAIDs (applied to the skin) are effective in minor injuries and chronic pain but there is no obvious role for them in day-case surgery. RESULTS-POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING: The proportion of patients who may feel nauseated or vomit after surgery is very variable, despite similar operations and anaesthetic techniques. Systematic review can still lead to clear estimations of effectiveness of interventions. Whichever anti-emetic is used, the choice is often between prophylactic use (trying to prevent anyone vomiting) and treating those people who do feel nauseated or who may vomit. Systematic reviews of a number of different anti-emetics show clearly that none of the anti-emetics is sufficiently effective to be used for prophylaxis. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATE

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3310/hta2120

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several clinical studies and large meta-analyses show that oral paracetamol at 500-1,000 mg provides faster pain relief than placebo for third-molar extraction or other dental pain.

    “Several clinical studies and large meta-analyses have shown that paracetamol -at oral doses between 500 and 1,000 mg -provides rapid pain relief superior to that of placebo for treatment of pain associated with third-molar extraction or other dental treatments (57,132,134).”

    From Paracetamol: New Vistas of an Old Drug (2006) · cites this paper as [132]

    Chapter 8 (Results, pp. 62–69) reviews placebo-controlled trials at doses including 500–1,000 mg; 21 trials concerned post-dental pain, predominantly third-molar extraction. It reports greater pain relief with paracetamol than placebo, but the cited synthesis does not establish that relief began faster than with placebo or otherwise substantiate the claim’s specific emphasis on rapid relief. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]1. Henry D, Lim LL, Rodriguez LAG, Gutthann SP, Carson JL, Griffin M, et al. Variability in risk of gastrointestinal complications with individual non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: results of a collaborative meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;312:1563–6.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McQuay, & Moore
Affiliations
Churchill Hospital (GB)
Venue
Health Technology Assessment
Publisher
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Published
1998
Volume
2
Issue
12
Pages
1-236
ISSN
  • 1366-5278 (ISSN-L)
  • 2046-4924
DOI
10.3310/hta2120
OpenAlex
W2137935440
Cited by
131
References
46
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm (unspecified)
Locations
  • Health Technology Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Health Technology Assessment Programme (94/11/04)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Anesthesia and Pain Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Nausea and vomiting management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
postoperative analgesia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, outpatient surgery, opioid analgesics, tramadol, dextropropoxyphene, codeine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, preemptive analgesia, analgesic efficacy, analgesic side effects
MeSH terms
Acetaminophen, Ambulatory Surgical Procedures, Analgesia, Analgesics, Opioid, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Antiemetics, Codeine, Diclofenac, Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation, Humans, Ibuprofen, Morphine, Pain Measurement, Pain, Postoperative, Postoperative Pain, Dextropropoxyphene, Tramadol, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Ondansetron, Analgesics, Non-Narcotic, Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review