Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 141214

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2024 | Month : January | Volume : 18 | Issue : 1 | Page : UC13 - UC17 Full Version

Effect of 5% Dextrose Infusion on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomised Controlled Study


Published: January 1, 2024 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2024/66183.18854
BR Lakshmi, Roopashree Nanjundappa, Vithal Kulkarni

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology Pain and Critical Care, Oxford Medical College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, BGS Global Institute of Medical Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. 3. Senior Resident, Department of Anaesthesiology, ESICMC PGIMSR, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
BR Lakshmi,
D/o Ramanjaneya, #122, Kogilahalli KNS Post, Kolar-563101, Karnataka, India.
E-mail: lakshmi99930@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is defined as nausea, vomiting, or retching occurring in the postanaesthesia care unit within the first 24 hours of postoperative period. It is most common following laparoscopic cholecystectomy, causing postoperative discomfort and increasing patients’ stay in the postanaesthesia care unit.

Aim: To evaluate the effect of a 500 mL infusion of 5% dextrose on PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Materials and Methods: A randomised controlled study was conducted at Department of Anaesthesiology, ESICMC PGIMSR, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India from January 2019 to June 2020, involving 90 consenting patients who were randomly assigned to two groups. One group (Group-C) received a 500 mL infusion of 5% dextrose, while the other group (Group-D) received Ringer’s lactate 30 minutes before the end of surgery. Anaesthesia and surgical techniques were standardised for all cases. Postoperatively, primary parameters such as the incidence of nausea, vomiting, and retching, and secondary parameters such as rescue antiemetic consumption and changes in blood glucose changes were recorded. The Bellville scale was used to assess PONV. Data were analysed using the Chi-square (χ2) test, with a significance level of 0.05. Continuous variables were reported as mean±Standard Deviation (SD), and categorical variables were reported as proportions.

Results: Demographic parameters such as age (p=0.601), gender (p=0.259), weight (p=0.802), height (p=0.391), and Body Mass Index (BMI) (p=0.806) were comparable between the two study groups. A 5% dextrose infusion during laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduced nausea and vomiting during the postoperative period (p<0.05), decreased the overall incidence of PONV (p<0.001), and also reduced the requirement for rescue antiemetic dose (p<0.004). When comparing blood sugar levels, Group-D and Group-C showed no significant difference at T1, but there was a significant difference between the both groups at T2 (T1: p=0.211, T2: p<0.001).

Conclusion: A 5% dextrose infusion during laparoscopic cholecystectomy reduces the incidence of PONV and decreases the need for rescue antiemetic medication. Additionally, comparing blood sugar levels, Group-D and Group-C showed a significant difference after the drug infusion. Therefore, a 5% dextrose infusion can be recommended as an effective and safe method for the prophylaxis of PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Keywords

Antiemetic, Body mass index, Intravenous fluids, Prophylaxis

The PONV is defined as nausea, vomiting, or retching in the postanaesthesia care unit within the first 24 hours of the postoperative period (1). It is a common and distressing complication after anaesthesia and surgery, with a higher incidence of approximately 40% to 75% reported in laparoscopic surgeries (2). Although PONV is self-limiting, it leads to considerable postoperative discomfort and dissatisfaction. General anaesthesia increases the incidence of PONV. Other risk factors for PONV include female gender, a history of motion sickness, non smoking status, opioids, and the duration and type of surgery. Given that patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy are at a higher risk of developing PONV, there has been increasing attention directed towards its prophylaxis in this population (3).

Several approaches, such as serotonin receptor (5-HT3) antagonists, dexamethasone, droperidol, promethazine, and some non pharmacologic techniques, have been tried for the prevention of PONV, but the optimal approach remains obscure (4).

The preoperative infusion of intravenous fluids, such as dextrose, can decrease dehydration-related insulin resistance, which is one of the underlying aetiologies for PONV (5). Studies by Saleh AN et al., Jablameli M et al., Mishra A et al., and Lakhotia R et al., have shown that intravenous dextrose infusion reduces the incidence of PONV (1),(5),(6),(7). On the other hand, there are other studies, such as Zorrilla- Vaca A et al., Pin-on P et al., and Patel P et al., that have shown that dextrose infusion does not significantly reduce the incidence of PONV (8),(9),(10). Despite several conducted studies, there is very limited and controversial evidence supporting the effectiveness of intravenous 5% dextrose administration in the prevention of PONV (5),(6),(10),(11).

Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of intraoperative infusion of 5% dextrose-containing crystalloid on PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia.

Material and Methods

A randomised controlled study was conducted at ESIC Medical College- PGIMSR, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, India, from January 2019 to June 2020. Ethical committee approval was obtained, and the Ethical committee approval number is No. 532/L/11/12/Ethics/ESICMC&PGIMSR/Estt. Vol. IV. Informed written consent was obtained from all patients.

Sample size: A minimum of 42 patients were required in each group to detect a decrease in the incidence from 40% to 30% with 80% power and a significance level of 0.05 (6). To account for potential dropouts, a total of 90 patients were enrolled, with 45 patients in each group and no potential dropouts.

Inclusion criteria: Patients of either gender belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1 or 2, aged between 18-40 years, undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery under general anaesthesia were included.

Exclusion criteria: Patients with a history of PONV, smoking, motion sickness, coagulopathy, diabetes mellitus, severe hypertension, cardiac, renal, or hepatic dysfunction, a duration of surgery of more than two hours, and those who were unable to understand the verbal rating scale were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

A detailed preanaesthetic check-up was done on the day prior to surgery. All the patients were randomised into two groups (Group-C and Group-D) using a computer-generated random number table. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) flow diagram is provided (Table/Fig 1).

Patients in Group-C received 500 mL of Ringer’s lactate, while patients in Group-D received 5% dextrose in 500 mL of Ringer’s lactate, administered half an hour before the end of surgery over a period of 30 minutes. The study fluid was prepared by an anaesthesiology resident (observer 1) who was not further involved in the study. A 5% dextrose in Ringer’s lactate solution was prepared by adding 50 mL of 50% dextrose to 450 mL of Ringer’s lactate (11).

All patients followed the standard fasting guidelines, remaining nil per oral for 6-8 hours for solid foods and two hours for clear fluids.

On the morning of surgery, once the patient was transferred to the operating room, venous access was established using an 18 G i.v. cannula in the non dominant hand, and i.v. Ringer’s lactate infusion was initiated at a rate of 2 mL/kg/hr. Standard monitors, including three-electrode Electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring lead II, capnography, Non Invasive Blood Pressure (NIBP), and pulse oximetry, were connected. Anaesthesia was induced using midazolam 0.02 mg/kg, fentanyl 2 mcg/kg, propofol 2-2.5 mg/kg, and vecuronium 0.15 mg/kg. The trachea was intubated with an appropriately sised endotracheal tube, and anaesthesia was maintained using 35% oxygen, 65% nitrous oxide, and 1-2% sevoflurane with positive pressure ventilation.

The surgery was performed using a standard approach, maintaining intra-abdominal pressure below 14 mmHg during pneumoperitoneum. All patients received 4 mg of i.v. ondansetron and a 1 g paracetamol infusion 30 minutes before emerging from anaesthesia. Residual neuromuscular block was reversed using neostigmine 50 mcg/kg and glycopyrrolate 1 mcg/kg. The trachea was extubated when the patient was awake.

Blood glucose was measured at baseline and after 30 minutes of study fluid infusion using a point-of-care device (ACCU-CHECK®) from Roche Pharmaceuticals.

In the postoperative period, observer 2 (who was involved in the study) assessed and documented PONV using the Bellville scale (Table/Fig 2). The score was obtained at 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 12 hours, and 24 hours, and the time of the first request for antiemetic was recorded. Patients who reported a score of more than three received a rescue antiemetic of 4 mg ondansetron i.v., and this was also documented.

Postoperative pain was treated by a standard analgesic regimen, which included 1 g i.v. paracetamol every 8 hours, 75 mg diclofenac infusion every 12 hours, and 50 mg tramadol every 8 hours for all patients. The primary objective was to compare the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, while secondary measures included antiemetic medication consumption and changes in blood glucose levels between the groups.

Statistical Analysis

All characteristics were summarised descriptively. For continuous variables, summary statistics such as mean±Standard Deviation (SD) were used. For categorical data, the number and percentage were used for data summaries and diagrammatic presentation. The Chi-square (χ2) test was used to assess the association between two categorical variables. If the p-value was less than 0.05, the results were considered statistically significant; otherwise, they were considered not statistically significant. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software v.23.0 and Microsoft Office 2007.

Results

Among 90 patients included in the study with 45 patients in each group, a comparison of gender and ASA status between Group-D and Group-C showed no statistically significant difference in gender (p=0.259) and ASA status of the participants in both groups (p=0.634) (Table/Fig 3).

A comparison of demographic parameters (age, weight, height, BMI) between Group-D and Group-C showed no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) (Table/Fig 4).

Statistically significant differences were observed between Group-D and Group-C for the Bellville score at three hours (p=0.015) and six hours (p=0.044) statistically there were no significant differences between Group-D and Group-C at one hour (p=0.071), 12 hours (p=0.320), and 24 hours (p=0.320) (Table/Fig 5) (12).

A comparison of clinical parameters between Group-D and Group-C showed no significant difference in blood sugar levels before the study fluid infusion between the two groups (Table/Fig 6). However, there was a significant difference between Group-D and Group-C for the overall PONV scale, overall incidence of PONV, and the need for rescue antiemetic medication (p<0.05).

Discussion

The PONV is one of the leading causes of unanticipated hospital admissions and a limiting factor in the early discharge of surgical patients. Laparoscopic surgeries have a higher incidence of PONV compared to other surgical procedures, with an incidence of approximately 60 to 70% (6). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a standard surgical approach for cholelithiasis. The incidence of PONV is generally higher in laparoscopic surgeries (13). Despite numerous medications being used for PONV, they are often associated with side effects like hypotension, dysphoria, excessive sedation, hallucination, and dry mouth (14). Although there is inconclusive evidence regarding the efficacy of perioperative glucose administration on PONV, oral and intravenous carbohydrate-rich liquids have been widely used for the treatment of PONV with good results (15).

The present study evaluated the effect of prophylactic administration of 500 mL of 5% dextrose given half an hour before the end of surgery on PONV in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The study showed that patients who received 5% dextrose had a lower incidence of nausea and vomiting (24.4%) compared to the control group (80%). Additionally, the intensity of PONV, as graded on the Bellville scale, was slightly lower in patients receiving 5% dextrose for up to six hours postoperatively. Patients in the study group also had lower Bellville scores at 3 to 6 hours compared to patients in the control group. The requirement for rescue antiemetics was less in the study group (9%) compared to the control group (33%) (12).

Atashkhoei et al., studied the intraoperative use of 5% dextrose similar to the present study but in patients undergoing diagnostic gynaecologic laparoscopy surgery (16). They found a significant decrease in the incidence of PONV in the dextrose group compared to the control group (22.85% vs. 45.7%), as well as a reduction in the severity of PONV, delay in the first time to request an antiemetic after surgery, and reduced total dose of antiemetic drugs used. These results are similar to the current study. Firouzian et al., studied the effect of dextrose infusion on PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and found a statistically significant difference in nausea vomiting scores between both groups (p<0.05). They also observed a low negative correlation coefficient between blood glucose levels and nausea scores upon Postanaesthetic Care Unit (PACU) arrival (11). Dextrose administration reduced the odds of vomiting events compared to placebo (estimate: -0.87, odds ratio=0.42, 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.64). The present study is similar to the present study, although they did not specifically study the incidence of PONV (16).

These study findings are also supported by other studies conducted by Dabu-Bondoc et al., and Irkal et al., who studied intravenous dextrose administration in gynaecologic laparoscopic, hysteroscopic surgeries, and endoscopic middle ear surgeries (17),(18). Dabu-Bondoc concluded that postanaesthesia intravenous dextrose administration did not result in significantly different postoperative nausea scores compared to the control group (p>0.05); however, patients who received dextrose consumed fewer rescue antiemetic medications (p=0.02) and had a shorter length of stay in the PACU (p=0.03) compared to patients in the control group. Irkal et al., observed that PONV scores were nearly the same between both groups and were not statistically significant (p>0.05). The dextrose group received fewer antiemetics (p=0.004) and had a shorter duration of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit (p<0.0001) (17),(18).

Sada S et al., showed that oral administration of carbohydrate-rich liquid drinks improved overall well-being, like thirst, hunger, mouth dryness, nausea, and weakness, in patients undergoing open cholecystectomy (p<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in postoperative nausea scores or lengths of hospital stay between the groups (p<0.05) (19). Rao V et al., conducted a separate study confirming the benefit of administering dextrose in laparoscopic surgeries (20).

Three meta-analyses have examined the efficacy of perioperative intravenous dextrose administration as prophylaxis for PONV. One of these, conducted by Yokoyama C et al., concluded that dextrose administration may decrease the incidence of nausea (21).

Indeed, several other studies have identified dehydration as a factor for a higher incidence of PONV, and adequate fluid replacement has been shown to improve PONV (5),(6),(9),(10). Lambert KG et al., noted that a preoperative fluid bolus using the 4-2-1 rule significantly decreases the incidence of PONV (22).

Dextrose is presumed to act as an antiemetic due to its high osmotic pressure, which reduces muscle contractions in the gastrointestinal tract. It also decreases gastric acid secretion, resulting in decreased gastric muscle contraction by inhibiting the vagal cholinergic pathways (16). Prolonged fasting is known to cause gastric mucosal hypoperfusion, which is further worsened by general anaesthesia and pneumoperitoneum, leading to increased intra-abdominal pressure. Adequate hydration with carbohydrate-rich fluids reduces mucosal hypoperfusion and reduces PONV (5),(6),(16).

Contrary to our findings, Zorrilla-Vaca A et al., Patel P et al., and Kim SH et al., (8),(10),(23) reported different results. Zorrilla-Vaca A et al., in a meta-analysis, concluded that perioperative dextrose infusion was not significantly associated with a reduction in PONV in the postanaesthesia care unit (risk ratio=0.91, 95% CI, 0.73-1.15; p=0.44). Patel P et al., in a randomised controlled trial, found no significant difference in PONV between groups during the first two hours of the postoperative period (Group-D 52.9% vs. Group-P 46.7%, p=0.43). Both groups had similar scores for nausea and vomiting severity during the postoperative stay and required more than one dose of antiemetic medication. However, Kim SH et al., studied the effect of 10% dextrose infusion on PONV in laparoscopic surgeries and concluded that there was a decrease in the requirement for antiemetics in the dextrose group (23).

Differences in the pathogenesis of nausea and vomiting may explain the discrepancy in results between different studies (21). The present study was conducted in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, while other published studies were conducted in gynaecological surgeries, middle ear surgeries, etc., (11),(18). In the current study, Ringer’s lactate solution was used for the preparation of the study fluid, while other studies have used normal saline for the same purpose (5),(9). Additionally, in the present study, the fluid was administered 30 minutes before the end of surgery, whereas some other studies administered the study fluid postoperatively (18),(20). Thus, although the studies showed a trend of decreased use of antiemetics in patients receiving dextrose, the magnitude of this effect may differ among the studies. The need for rescue antiemetic drugs depends on the baseline emesis risk of the included samples and whether any PONV prophylaxis was used (24).

Patients who received 5% dextrose had slightly higher blood sugar levels postoperatively (155.9±19.9 mg/dL) compared to the control group (103.3±9.3 mg/dL), which is within a clinically acceptable range. In the present study, the blood sugar level was measured before and after study infusion in both groups. When comparing the two groups, the mean difference was higher after study infusion in those receiving dextrose but did not exceed 200 mg/dL. Patients with perioperative hyperglycaemia are at a high-risk of developing complications such as dehydration, electrolyte disturbances, fluid shifts, ketoacidosis, hyperosmolar states, and increased mortality and length of hospital stay during the postoperative period (11). In line with this, the present study found higher blood sugar levels in patients who received dextrose, but it did not exceed 200 mg/dL.

Rao V et al., and Firouzian A et al., also reported higher blood sugar levels in the study group (11),(20). It is generally recommended to keep blood sugar levels between 140 to 200 mg/dL in patients with or without diabetes (25). Consistent with the findings of the present study and several other studies, the judicious use of intravenous dextrose-containing fluids is safe and effective in non diabetic patients in reducing postoperative side effects like nausea, vomiting, and dehydration without significantly increasing blood sugar levels (7),(11),(16).

Limitation(s)

The study had several limitations. Firstly, confounding factors such as the use of nitrous oxide and opioids were not studied, which could have influenced the incidence of PONV. Secondly, the study was conducted only in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and other types of laparoscopic surgeries were not included. Therefore, the results may not be generalisable to other surgical procedures. Additionally, the duration or length of the surgery was not taken into consideration when analysing the parameters, which could have potentially affected the incidence of PONV.

Conclusion

A 500 mL infusion of 5% dextrose given half an hour before the end of surgery reduces the incidence of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia. It also reduces the need for rescue antiemetics in the postoperative period. In terms of blood sugar levels, there was a significant difference after the infusion of the drug between the two groups. Therefore, the regular use of a 500 mL infusion of 5% dextrose can be recommended in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for its beneficial effect on PONV.

References

1.
Saleh AN, Emam DF, Kamal MM. Evaluating the effect of intraoperative dextrose 10% administration on reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery. The Open Anaesth J. 2019;13:78-85. [crossref]
2.
Gan TJ. Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesth Analg. 2006;102(6):1884-98. [crossref][PubMed]
3.
Fujii Y. Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(3):691-95. [crossref][PubMed]
4.
Gan TJ, Meyer T, Apfel CC, Chung F, Davis PJ, Eubanks S. Concensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting, Anaesth Analg. 2003;97(1):62-71. [crossref][PubMed]
5.
Jablameli M, Nazemroaya B, Salehfard L. Effects of preoperative glucose administration via intravenous versus oral route on recovery outcome in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Arch Anaesth & Crit Care. 2019;5(4):110-14. [crossref]
6.
Mishra A, Pandey RK, Sharma A, Darlong V, Punj J, Goswami D, et al. Is perioperative administration of 5% dextrose effective in reducing the incidence of PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy? A randomised control trial. J of Clin Anaesth. 2017;40:07-10. [crossref][PubMed]
7.
Lakhotia R, Longani S, Singh MK, Aggarwal A, Bogra J. Comparison of PONV score using Ringer’s solution and 5% dextrose in patients of laparoscopic cholecystectomy-clinical study. HECS Int J Comm Health Med Res. 2018;4(3):17-19.
8.
Zorrilla-Vaca A, Marmolejo-Posso D, Stone A, Li J, Grant MC. Perioperative dextrose infusion and postoperative nauea and vomiting: A meta-analysis of randomised trials. Anaesth Analg. 2019;129(4):943-50. [crossref][PubMed]
9.
Pin-on P, Boonsri S, Klanarong S. Intraoperative intravenous dextrose administration and the incidence of nausea and vomiting after gynaecologic laparoscopic surgery: A randomised double-blind controlled study. Chiang Mai Med J. 2018;57(2):61-69.
10.
Patel P, Meineke MN, Rasmussen T, Anderson DL, Brown J, Siddighi S. The relationship of intravenous dextrose administration during emergence from anaesthesia to postoperative nausea and vomiting: A randomised controlled trial. Anaesth Analg. 2013;117(1):34-42. [crossref][PubMed]
11.
Firouzian A, Kiasari AZ, Godazandeh G, Baradari AG. The effect of intravenous dextrose administration for prevention of postop nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A double-blind randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2017;61(10):803-10. [crossref][PubMed]
12.
Bellville JW, Bross ID, Howland WS. A method for the clinical evaluation of antiemetic agents. Anaesthesiology. 1959;20:753-60. [crossref][PubMed]
13.
Wattwil M, Thörn SE, Lövqvist A, Wattwil L, Klockhoff H, Larsson LG, et al. Perioperative gastric emptying is not a predictor of early postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Anaesth Analg. 2002;95(2):476-79. [crossref]
14.
Ryu J, So YM, Hwang J, Do SH. Ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(4):812-17. [crossref][PubMed]
15.
Hausel J, Nygren J, Thorell A, Lagerkranser M, Ljungqvist O. Randomised clinical trial of the effects of oral preoperative carbohydrates on postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg. 2005;92(4):415-21. [crossref][PubMed]
16.
Atashkhoei S, Naghipour B, Marandi PH, Dehghani A. Effect of intraoperative dextrose infusion for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in diagnostic gynaecologic laparoscopy. Crescent J Med Biol Sci. 2018;5(1):45-49.
17.
Dabu-Bondoc S, Vadivelu N, Shimono C, English A, Kosarussavadi B, Dai F, et al. Intravenous dextrose administration reduces postoperative antiemetic rescue treatment requirements and postanaesthesia care unit length of stay. Anaesth Analg. 2013;117(3):591-96. [crossref][PubMed]
18.
Irkal JN, Reddy SV, Vardhan H, Madhavi S. Role of dextrose on reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting following endoscopic middle ear surgery: A randomised, double-blind, controlled study. Indian J Clin Anaesth. 2016;3(3):352-56. [crossref]
19.
Sada F, Krasniqi A, Hamza A, Gecaj-Gashi A, Bicaj B, Kavaja F. A randomised trial of preoperative oral carbohydrates in abdominal surgery. BMC Anaesthesiol. 2014;14:93. [crossref][PubMed]
20.
Rao V, Bala I, Jain D, Bharti N. Effect of intravenous dextrose administration on postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34(10):705-07. [crossref][PubMed]
21.
Yokoyama C, Mihara T, Kashiwagi S, Koga M, Goto T. Effects of intravenous dextrose on preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):01-07. [crossref][PubMed]
22.
Lambert KG, Wakim JH, Lambert NE. Preoperative fluid bolus and reduction of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery. AANA J. 2009;77(2):110-14.
23.
Kim SH, Kim DH, Kim E, Kim HJ, Choi YS. Does perioperative intravenous dextrose reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:2003-11.[crossref][PubMed]
24.
Eberhart LH, Frank S, Lange H, Morin AM, Scherag A, Wulf H, et al. Systematic review on the recurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after a first episode in the recovery room-implications for the treatment of PONV and related clinical trials. BMC Anaesthesiol. 2006;6:14. [crossref][PubMed]
25.
Duggan EW, Carlson K, Umpierrez GE. Perioperative hyperglycemia management: An update. Anaesthesiology. 2017;126(3):547-60.[crossref][PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/66183.18854

Date of Submission: Jun 22, 2023
Date of Peer Review: Sep 06, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Oct 27, 2023
Date of Publishing: Jan 01, 2024

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Jun 23, 2023
• Manual Googling: Sep 15, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Oct 18, 2023 (19%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

EMENDATIONS: 8

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com