|
Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study
Khosrou Naghibi1, Parviz Kashefi1, Hamed Azarnoush2, Parisa Zabihi2
1 Department of Anesthesiology, Alzahra University Hospital, Isfahan, Iran
2 General Practitioner, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| Date of Submission | 06-Jan-2013 |
| Date of Acceptance | 15-Jan-2014 |
| Date of Web Publication | 11-Feb-2015 |
Correspondence Address:
Hamed Azarnoush
General Practitioner, Department of Anesthesiology, Alzahra University Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Iran
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2277-9175.151239
Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common complication after general anesthesia in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery. We aimed to compare the effect of a sub hypnotic dose of Propofol in the prevention of PONV after lower abdominal surgery with that of the conventional antiemetic drug Metoclopramide.
Materials and Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 104 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II status, aged 18-65 years, and undergoing elective lower abdominal surgery were randomized to one of four groups (n = 26 each). The patients in the four groups were administered intravenously Propofol 20 mg (G1), Propofol 30 mg (G2), Metoclopramide 10 mg (G3), and placebo (G4), 15 min before skin closure. All episodes of PONV during the first 24 h after anesthesia were recorded by an investigator who was blinded to treatment assignment.
Results: There were no significant differences between the treatment groups with regard to their gender, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, duration of recovery time and hospital stay, and also body mass index (BMI) (P > 0.05). The prevalence of PONV 0-6 h after anesthesia was 23.08% with Propofol 20 mg (P = 0.005), 15.38% with Propofol 30 mg (P = 0.016), 15.38% with Metoclopramide 10 mg (P = 0.016), compared to 30.77% with placebo (P = 0.005).
Conclusions: Administration of a subhypnotic dose of Propofol (30 mg) was found to be as effective as 10 mg Metoclopramide in reducing the incidence and severity of PONV in adult patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries under Isoflurane-based anesthesia in the early postoperative period. Keywords: General anesthesia, lower abdominal surgery, metoclopramide, postoperative nausea and vomiting, Propofol
How to cite this article:
Naghibi K, Kashefi P, Azarnoush H, Zabihi P. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Adv Biomed Res 2015;4:35 |
How to cite this URL:
Naghibi K, Kashefi P, Azarnoush H, Zabihi P. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Adv Biomed Res [serial online] 2015 [cited 2023 Sep 26];4:35. Available from: https://www.advbiores.net/text.asp?2015/4/1/35/151239 |
| Introduction | |  |
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most distressing and common side effects of anesthetics and may cause severe discomfort among patients. [1] In addition, PONV can lead to delayed post-anesthesia admission and higher medical costs. [2]
The incidence of PONV in patients has been reported to be from 20 to 70% after various types of surgeries, when no prophylactic antiemetic is provided. [3],[4],[5]
PONV can cause severe discomfort amongst patients and is probably related to several factors, which include age, sex, operation type, and anesthesia-related factors. [6],[7],[8] Other factors, including obesity, a history of motion sickness and/or a history of previous postoperative emesis, and also preoperative volume loading may have an important role in PONV. [9],[10],[11]
The optimal strategy for preventing PONV remains contentious. [12]
Global prophylaxis for PONV is generally not recommended, although it has been demonstrated to be cost-effective in high-risk patients. [13],[14]
PONV occurs frequently in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgeries. [15],[16]
With respect to anesthetic agents, nitrous oxide (N 2 O) and volatile anesthetics increase the occurrence of PONV, but Propofol is known to have an antiemetic effect. [17],[18],[19],[20]
The data on the efficacy of specific antiemetics and their combination are still lacking, so definitive conclusions are difficult to make at present. On the other hand, while the efficacy of Propofol is presently not clear, Metoclopramide, a popular antiemetic for decades, was found to have limited efficacy at the lower traditional dosage.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the number of patients who have symptoms of PONV and the objective degree of PONV which occurs after general anesthesia with Isoflurane and a subhypnotic dose of Propofol at each time period during the post-anesthesia period in patients undergoing elective lower abdominal surgeries.
| Materials and methods | | |
One hundred and four American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II patients of age 18-65 years and who were scheduled for elective lower abdominal surgery under general anesthesia participated in this randomized double-blinded clinical trial [Figure 1].
The study protocol was approved by Isfahan University of Medical Sciences ethics committee, and all patients gave written informed consent. The study was performed in Alzahra University Hospital in Isfahan in 2009.
Before anesthesia, patients with a risk factor of PONV, or with a prior history of motion sickness or PONV and also administration of an antiemetic before surgery, patients with a history of drug or alcohol abuse, and patients with body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m 2 were not included.
The patients with any unpredictable condition in surgery or any complication such as severe hypotension [whenever systolic blood pressure (SBP) was less than 70% of baseline] or bleeding more than 10% of total blood volume were excluded.
The sample size was estimated based on a power calculation which showed that at least 26 patients per group were necessary to achieve 80% power to detect a 20% difference between the four groups in the visual analog scale (VAS) scoring with an α equal to 0.05.
Patients were randomly allocated into one of four groups (Propofol 20 mg (G1), Propofol 30 mg (G2), Metoclopramide 10 mg (G3), or isotonic saline as a placebo (G4)) using sealed envelopes, with 26 patients in each group.
The baseline heart rate (HR), SBP, diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP), and also SaO 2 were recorded every 15 min during the entire anesthesia period and also every 15 min during the recovery period. No premedication was given to the patients.
In all groups, induction of anesthesia was carried out with sodium thiopental 6 mg/kg, Fentanyl 2 mic/kg, Morphine 0.15 mg/kg, and Atracurium 0.6 mg/kg and then trachea was intubated. Maintenance of anesthesia was performed with 50% N 2 O and O 2 , and also, 1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) of Isoflurane with controlled ventilation. Mechanically controlled ventilation was adjusted to maintain an end-tidal CO 2 concentration between 35 and 45 mm Hg throughout the surgery.
Fifteen minutes before the end of surgery, patients were administered either 20 mg Propofol (G1), 30 mg Propofol (G2), 10 mg Metoclopramide (G3), or the same volume of isotonic saline as placebo (G4). The injected drugs were prepared in identical syringes by a researcher not otherwise involved in this study.
At the end of the surgery, the residual of neuromuscular block was reversed with a mixture of 0.02 mg/kg atropine and 0.04 mg/kg of neostigmine.
The incidence and severity of PONV and the side effects of the antiemetic during the first 24- h period after the surgery were recorded. These variables were assessed by the investigators unaware of the group identities and subdivided into three time periods, 0-6 h, 6-12 h, and 12-24 h, postoperatively. Duration of surgery (min) and also duration of the recovery period (min) were recorded.
Nausea was defined as a subjectively unpleasant sensation associated with an awareness of the urge to vomit. Severity of nausea was determined using verbally voted scores, wherein mild was defined as a score of 1-3, moderate as a score of 4-6, and severe as a score of 7-10. [21]
Vomiting was defined as the forceful expulsion of the gastric content from the mouth and was treated with a single stat dose of Metoclopramide 0.15 mg/kg body weight intravenously.
The baseline HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP, and also SaO 2 were recorded every 15 min throughout the surgery and also in the recovery room. Duration of surgery (the time from the start of surgery to the closure of the wound by dressing) and also duration of recovery stay [the time from arriving to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) to discharge from there] were recorded.
If patients were awake and had no PONV or hemodynamic instability, they were discharged from PACU.
The collected data were entered into a computer and analyzed by SPSS version 20 software. Data are presented as mean ± SD or number (percent). Data such as age, weight, anesthesia time, and recovery time were compared using Student's t-test; sex distribution and ASA physical status were measured by using χ2 -test or Fisher's exact test if needed. The trend and change of HR, SBP, DBP, and MAP during different time periods were analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
For multiple comparisons among means, ANOVA with Fisher's protected least-significant difference test. In addition, the difference between these trends was analyzed by paired t-tests.
| Results | | |
The four groups of patients were comparable with respect to sex, mean age, weight, height, male to female ratio, ASA physical status, and duration of surgery and also recovery time [Table 1]. | Table 1: Patients characteristics, duration of surgery, hospital stay, and calculated risks for PONV
Click here to view |
The incidence of complete response (% of patients with no PONV) in the four groups was 76.92, 84.61, 84.61, and 69.23%, respectively, during the first 6 h (P ≤ 0.05).
During the first 6-h period after emergence, the incidence of complete response was significantly higher, and the severity of nausea and the use of rescue antiemetic medication were significantly lower in the Propofol 30 mg and also Metoclopramide 10 mg groups compared with the other two groups, but these effects were not observed during the other periods [Table 2]. | Table 2: Incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting and requirements for antiemetic treatment
Click here to view |
The mean age of patients in groups 1-4 was 46.7 ± 6.4, 49.4 ± 8.2, 42.3 ± 6.7, and 47.4 ± 5.3 years, respectively, and results of the t-test showed that there was no significant difference between them (P > 0.05).
All the study groups were comparable with respect to their demographic data. The baseline values of all groups showed no significant differences (P < 0.05).
According to the repeated measures ANOVA, the mean changes of HR, SaO 2 , SBP, DBP, and MAP during the anesthesia period and recovery time in all the groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05)[Table 3]. | Table 3: Intraoperative maximum mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate changes, blood loss, morphine use, and PACU stay in the four groups
Click here to view |
The incidence of postoperative complications such as hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, or bradycardia, and shivering was very low (two cases of shivering in group 3, two cases of hypotension in group 1, and 1 case of bradycardia in group 1) and the statistical analysis was not possible.
| Discussion | | |
Lower abdominal surgeries are associated with a relatively higher incidence of PONV. It can be problematic, particularly after lower abdominal surgeries since it can lead to complications such as wound dehiscence, prolonged recovery stay and also prolonged hospital stay, and moreover, increased cost. [22] Therefore, PONV is the anesthetic complication of greatest concern for patients and continues to be a significant concern for anesthesiologists. [5]
Propofol is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic agent used for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia and sedation for surgical operation and mechanical ventilation in adults. [23] Furthermore, Propofol has been reported to be an effective antiemetic in patients who had undergone various surgeries. [24],[25],[26],[27] However, the optimal dose of Propofol to reduce the PONV is debatable and has not been established. Hence, more studies are necessary to determine the drugs and their doses that should be selected.
A number of well-designed trials with controversial results about the prevention of PONV with a subhypnotic dose of Propofol have been published. [28],[29],[30],[31] Shinn et al., in a randomized clinical trial of 38 patients who underwent gynecologic laparoscopic surgery, reported that the incidence of PONV during the first 24 h postoperatively in the case of Propofol was significantly lower than that with Sevoflurane, and this corresponds to the results of the present study which have established the antiemetic effect of Propofol. But while the number of patients with PONV within 1 h postoperatively in the case of Propofol was significantly less than with Sevoflurane, there were differences in the number of patients with symptoms of PONV from 1 to 6 h and also from 6 to 24 h postoperatively. [32]
In the present study, the dose of Propofol used was decided by referring to previous studies which reported that a subhypnotic dose of 30 mg of Propofol is required to prevent PONV during the 24 h after surgeries with Isoflurane anesthesia. [33],[34],[35]
A systemic review of 84 randomized controlled trials that compared Propofol with inhalational agents showed that the preventative effects of Propofol on PONV were significant only in high-risk patients during early PONV (<6 h). [36],[38] Apfel et al. concluded in a randomized controlled study of 1180 patients at high risk for PONV that the risk factors of late PONV (2-24 h) and early PONV (2 h) were different. [37] Although we found a trend toward a greater complete response in the 30 mg Propofol group, this was significant only during early PONV (<6 h), which is consistent with the result of Apfel et al. on the prevention of PONV in patients after Propofol-based anesthesia in total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) [38] Therefore, appropriate prophylactic antiemetic treatment should be considered.
The results of the present study show that a subhypnotic dose of Propofol (30 mg) reduces the incidence and severity of nausea in patients who had undergone lower abdominal surgeries [Table 2]. However, the use of traditional antiemetics is limited by their side effects, which include dysphoric and extrapyramidal symptoms.
In conclusion, we found that 30 mg propofol was effective in preventing PONV in patients who had undergone elective lower abdominal surgeries with Isoflurane-based anesthesia, especially during the first 6 h after the surgery.
The limitation of this study was the small sample size and the fact that we followed patients only for 24 h postoperatively; however, the findings seem particularly robust in spite of this.
To conclude, we suggest similar studies comparing the effects of type of anesthesia or other types of surgeries and different injection time periods of subhypnotic dose of propofol on PONV. On the other hand, postoperative analgesia with opioids is associated with an incidence of PONV in over 30% of patients. As PONV management in patients with preoperative narcotic dependency or acute opioid tolerance is challenging, [39] it requires further studies.
| Acknowledgments | | |
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all those from Alzahra University Hospital who helped us complete this research. Furthermore, our special thanks are extended to the staff of post-anesthesia care unit and the surgery ward for their warm assistance with the collection of our data.
The authors have no funding or support to report.
| References | | |
| 1. | Lee DC, Kwak HJ, Kim HS, Choi SH, Lee JY. The preventative effect of ramosetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting after total thyroidectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;61:154-8.  |
| 2. | Chatterjee S, Rudra A, Sengupta S. Current concepts in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesthesiol Res Pract 2011;2011:748031. |
| 3. | Shinn HK, Lee MH, Moon SY, Hwang SI, Lee CS, Lim HK, et al. Post-operative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: Comparison between propofol and sevoflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;60:36-40. |
| 4. | Le TP, Gan TJ. Update on the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting and postdischarge nausea and vomiting in ambulatory surgery. Anesthesiol Clin 2010;28:225-49. |
| 5. | Griffiths JD, Gyte GM, Paranjothy S, Brown HC, Broughton HK, Thomas J. Iterventions for preventing nausea and vomiting in women undergoing regional anaesthesia for cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9:CD007579. |
| 6. | Safavi MR, Honarmand A. Low dose intravenous midazolam for prevention of PONV, in lower abdominal surgery-preoperative vs intraoperative administration. Middle East J Anesthesiol 2009;20:75-81. |
| 7. | Honarmand A, Safavi M, Khalili G, Mohammadnejad F. Prophylactic administration of haloperidol plus midazolam reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting better than using each drug alone in patients undergoing middle ear surgery. Saudi J Anaesth 2012;6:145-51. [ PUBMED]  |
| 8. | Jabalameli M, Honarmand A, Safavi M, Chitsaz M. Treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery: A randomized, double-blinded comparison of midazolam, ondansetron, and a combination. Adv Biomed Res 2012;1:2. [ PUBMED] |
| 9. | Safavi M, Honarmand A, Habibabady MR, Baraty S, Aghadavoudi O. Assessing intravenous ketamine and intravenous dexamethasone separately and in combination for early oral intake, vomiting and postoperative pain relief in children following tonsillectomy. Med Arh 2012;66:111-5. |
| 10. | Heidari SM, Talakoub R, Yaraghi Z. Comparing the preventive effect of midazolam and midazolam-dexamethasone on postoperative nausea and vomiting in elective middle ear surgery. Adv Biomed Res 2012;1:9. [ PUBMED] |
| 11. | Heidari SM, Saghaei M, Shafiee Z. Effect of preoperative volume loading on the intraoperative variability of blood pressure and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Med Arh 2012;66:94-6. |
| 12. | Heidari SM, Saryazdi H, Saghaei M. Effect of intravenous midazolam premedication on postoperative nausea and vomiting after cholecystectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2004;42:77-80. |
| 13. | Diemunsch P, Diemunsch AM. Economics of antiemetics. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2002;15:233-7. |
| 14. | Klaiman P, Sternfeld M, Deeb Z, Roth Y, Golan A, Ezri T, et al. Magnetic acupressure for management of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A preliminary study. Minerva Anestesiol 2008;74:635-42. |
| 15. | Lee JW, Park HJ, Choi J, Park SJ, Kang H, Kim EG. Comparison of ramosetron's and ondansetron's preventive anti-emetic effects in highly susceptible patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;61:488-92. |
| 16. | Ajori L, Nazari L, Mazloomfard MM, Amiri Z. Effects of gabapentin on postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting after abdominal hysterectomy: A double blind randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;285:677-82. |
| 17. | Yoo YC, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Shin S, Choi EK, Lee JW. Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Yonsei Med J 2012;53:1197-202. |
| 18. | Konstantopoulos K, Makris A, Moustaka A, Karmaniolou I, Konstantopoulos G, Mela A. Sevoflurane versus propofol anesthesia in patients undergoing lumbar spondylodesis: A randomized trial. J Surg Res 2013;179:72-7. |
| 19. | Levine PA, Bauchner H. Notice of retraction: "Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with antiemetics in patients undergoing middle ear surgery: Comparison of a small dose of propofol with droperidol or metoclopramide" (Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127[1]:25-28). Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;138:692. |
| 20. | Ghimire A, Bhattarai B, Rahman TR, Singh SN, Koirala S, Tripathi M. Propofol sedation during spinal anaesthesia-a dose finding study. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ) 2011;9:170-3. |
| 21. | Kranke P, Röhm KD, Diemunsch P, Gan TJ, Apfel CC, Eberhart L, et al. Intravenous buspirone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2012;68:1465-72. |
| 22. | Esteve N, Valdivia J, Ferrer A, Mora C, Ribera H, Garrido P. Do anesthetic techniques influence postoperative outcomes? Part II. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2013;60:93-102. |
| 23. | Yoo YC, Bai SJ, Lee KY, Shin S, Choi EK, Lee JW. Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective randomized trial. Yonsei Med J 2012;53:1197-202. |
| 24. | Lee DW, Lee HG, Jeong CY, Jeong SW, Lee SH. Postoperative nausea and vomiting after mastoidectomy with tympanoplasty: A comparison between TIVA with propofol-remifentanil and balanced anesthesia with sevoflurane-remifentanil. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;61:399-404. |
| 25. | Won YJ, Yoo JY, Chae YJ, Kim DH, Park SK, Cho HB, et al. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting after thyroidectomy using three anaesthetic techniques. J Int Med Res 2011;39:1834-42. |
| 26. | Park SK, Cho EJ. A randomized controlled trial of two different interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: Total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol and remifentanil versus prophylactic palonosetron with inhalational anaesthesia using sevoflurane-nitrous oxide. J Int Med Res 2011;39:1808-15. |
| 27. | Erdem AF, Yoruk O, Silbir F, Alici HA, Cesur M, Dogan N, et al. Tropisetron plus subhypnotic propofol infusion is more effective than tropisetron alone for the prevention of vomiting in children after tonsillectomy. Anaesth Intensive Care 2009;37:54-9. |
| 28. | Fujii Y. Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women scheduled for breast cancer surgery. J Anesth 2011;25:917-22. |
| 29. | Arslan M, Demir ME. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting with a small dose of propofol combined with dexamethasone 4 mg or dexamethasone 8 mg in patients undergoing middle ear surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Bratisl Lek Listy 2011;112:332-6. |
| 30. | Gecaj-Gashi A, Hashimi M, Sada F, Baftiu N, Salihu S, Terziqi H, et al. Propofol vs isoflurane anesthesia-incidence of PONV in patients at maxillofacial surgery. Adv Med Sci 2010;55:308-12. |
| 31. | Fujii Y, Itakura M. Comparison of propofol, droperidol, and metoclopramide for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting after breast cancer surgery: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in Japanese patients. Clin Ther 2008;30:2024-9. |
| 32. | Shinn HK, Lee MH, Moon SY, Hwang SI, Lee CS, Lim HK, et al. Post-operative nausea and vomiting after gynecologic laparoscopic surgery: Comparison between propofol and sevoflurane. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;60:36-40. |
| 33. | Vanlersberghe C, Camu F. Propofol. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2008; (182):267-82:227-52. |
| 34. | Batra YK, Ivanova M, Ali SS, Shamsah M, Al Qattan AR, Belani KG. The efficacy of a subhypnotic dose of propofol in preventing laryngospasm following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy in children. Paediatr Anaesth 2005;15:1094-7. |
| 35. | Unlugenc H, Guler T, Gunes Y, Isik G. Comparative study of the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron, propofol and midazolam in the early postoperative period. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2004;21:60-5. |
| 36. | Tramèr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Propofol anaesthesia and postoperative nausea and vomiting: Quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled studies. Br J Anaesth 1997;78:247-55. |
| 37. | Apfel CC, Läärä E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: Conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology 1999;91:693-700. |
| 38. | Apfel CC, Roewer N, Korttila K. How to study postoperative nausea and vomiting. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2002;46:921-8. |
| 39. | Smith HS. Opioid metabolism. Mayo Clin Proc 2009;84:613-24. |
[Figure 1]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis |
|
| Stephanie Weibel,Gerta Rücker,Leopold HJ Eberhart,Nathan L Pace,Hannah M Hartl,Olivia L Jordan,Debora Mayer,Manuel Riemer,Maximilian S Schaefer,Diana Raj,Insa Backhaus,Antonia Helf,Tobias Schlesinger,Peter Kienbaum,Peter Kranke | | Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2020; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Effect of sub-hypnotic dose of propofol on prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting as part of multimodal antiemetic in patients undergoing open abdominal surgery: A prospective cohort study, Gondar university hospital, northwest Ethiopia, 2016 |
|
| Hailu Yimer,Nugusu Ayalew,Zewditu Abdisa,Adugna Aregawi | | International Journal of Surgery Open. 2017; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
 |
|
|
|
Search Pubmed for