COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN GRANISETRON, ONDANSETRON AND PROPOFOL FOR THE PREVENTION OF EMESIS AFTER GYNAECOLOGICAL LAPROSCOPY
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficiency and safety of granisetron versus
ondansetron and Propofol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patient undergoing day
case gynaecological laproscopy under general anaesthesia.
Material and Methods: This study was conducted in Alquwayiyah General Hospital and Riyadh Medical
Complex. K.S.A, over and period of six months, from January 2004 to June 2004 (both Months inclusive).
120 adult non pregnant female patients (18-40 yrs of age) of ASA I-II scheduled for diagnostic
gynaecological laproscopy were included in this study. Patients with severe systemic or endocrine disease
who had predisposing factors for delayed gastric emptying, such as diabetes, cholecystitis or
neuromuscular disorders were excluded.
Results: This study was conducted in 120 patients classified into six groups (20 patients each). The first
group received granisetron, the second group ondansetron, the third, fourth and fifth group received
propofol in different does. The last group received normal saline as placebo ( control group). Treatment
with either granisetron (group-I) and ondansetron (group-II) resulted in significant lower incidence of
nausea and vomiting over 12 hours observation postoperatively compared with other group. However
granisetron resulted in significant in lower incidence than ondansteron.
Conclusion: It is concluded that preoperative prophylactic administration of intravenous granisetron 40
ug/kg is effective and superior to ondansetron and propofol in preventing nausea and vomiting after
gynaecological laproscopic surgical procedures.
Article Details
Work published in JPMI is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.