Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

We conducted a systematic literature search and meta-analysis to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV; PON and POV, respectively) in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

Methods

The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched up to March 2019 to identify relevant studies.

Results

The final pooled analysis included 6 RCTs and revealed that postoperative treatment with ramosetron at 24 to 48 hours after surgery significantly reduced the incidence of PON and POV relative to treatment with ondansetron. In a subgroup analysis, ramosetron 0.3 mg tended to reduce PON (0–2 hours) and POV (24–48 hours) more effectively than ondansetron 4 mg. However, no statistical difference was observed between ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg in terms of the reduction of PON or POV during any time interval within the first 48 hours after surgery.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that ramosetron 0.3 mg is superior to ondansetron 4 mg and comparable to ondansetron 8 mg for PONV prophylaxis after laparoscopic surgery.

Keywords

Ramosetron ondansetron laparoscopic surgery postoperative nausea and vomiting randomized controlled trial antiemetic

Introduction

Although both physicians and patients consider the avoidance of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) to be an important clinical issue, this distressing complication remains common after surgical procedures.^1,2 Patients who undergo laparoscopic surgery are highly susceptible to PONV because abdominal gas insufflation may stretch mechanoreceptors in the intestine, leading to serotonin release and the subsequent activation of serotonin subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptors.³ The reported incidences of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery range from 46% to 72%.^4,5 In addition to causing psychological and physical discomfort, PONV increases the risk of postoperative morbidities such as pulmonary aspiration, dehydration, wound dehiscence, and electrolyte imbalance. These morbidities can disrupt the surgical wound and place an increased burden on the hospital system.^6,7 Therefore, the prevention and/or treatment of PONV may accelerate early postoperative recovery, alleviate undesirable side effects, and increase patient satisfaction.^7,8

The use of various types of antiemetics such as phenothiazines⁹ and benzamide¹⁰ to prevent and treat PONV in patients scheduled to undergo laparoscopic surgery is of increasing research interest, although the effects of these agents on PONV remain largely unclear. Of the presently available antiemetics, 5-HT3 receptor (5HT3R) antagonists (e.g., ondansetron, ramosetron) are widely used to prevent PONV.^11,12 Members of this superfamily of Cys-loop, ligand-gated ion channels act as highly potent antagonists of serotonin binding to 5HT3Rs on the terminals of afferent branches of the vagus nerve and in certain areas of the brain.¹³ Accordingly, these drugs can be used to treat PONV in patients recovering from surgery. Ondansetron, the first commercially available 5HT3R antagonist, has a relatively short half-life of 3 to 5 hours and has been shown to be more potent than conventional antiemetics (e.g., metoclopramide and droperidol) for the prevention of PONV.^14–16 Ramosetron, a newly developed 5HT3R antagonist, has a relatively long duration of action (up to 48 hours) and a markedly slow rate of dissociation from its bound receptor. Accordingly, the receptor antagonist effect of ramosetron is more persistent than that of ondansetron.^17,18 The first report describing 5HT3R antagonist therapy for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery was published in 2010.¹⁹ Although several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have since been conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ondansetron and ramosetron for the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery,^19–21 the conclusions have been somewhat inconsistent. Accordingly, it remains unclear whether ramosetron is more effective than ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in patients after laparoscopic surgery.

Therefore, the present analysis aimed to identify published RCTs that compared the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery under general anesthesia. We anticipate that the results of our analysis will add to the existing knowledge on this topic and facilitate surgeons, anesthesiologists, patients, and policymakers in making relevant decisions regarding the future care of this patient population.

Materials and methods

Search strategy

Independent systematic searches of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to March 2019 were conducted by two of the study authors (Yiping Li and Ruiming Deng) to identify all relevant available studies. The search was restricted to articles published in English, and the following keywords were applied: “ramosetron,” “ondansetron,” “postoperative nausea and vomiting,” “PONV,” “PON,” “POV,” “nausea,” “vomiting,” “laparoscopic surgery,” “laparoscopic,” “randomized controlled trial,” and “RCT.” We also searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles to identify additional relevant studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were selected according to the following inclusion criteria: (i) RCT design; (ii) intervention of ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of PONV; (iii) patients inclusion of undergoing laparoscopic surgery; (iv) data available for analysis; and (v) at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of nausea or retching/vomiting (primary outcome) and side effects following the administration of ramosetron or ondansetron, such as dizziness, headache, and drowsiness (secondary outcomes). Studies written in a language other than English were excluded.

Data extraction and quality assessment

The two authors independently extracted the following outcome-related data from all potentially eligible studies: first author, publication year, country, interventions, participant age, sample size, and primary results. Two additional authors (Juan Zhou and Yuan Chen) independently conducted a quality evaluation of all selected studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.²² The following six specific domains were evaluated: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other issues. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion with a third author (Aiping Ouyang) when necessary.

Statistical analysis

All statistical calculations were performed using Revman 5.2 (Cochrane Collaboration). Data were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, with values >50% indicating significant heterogeneity. An I² value <50% indicated no statistical heterogeneity, and in such cases a fixed-effect model was applied to the analysis. Otherwise, a random-effect model was applied. A funnel plot was used to assess publication bias.

Results

A total of 115 studies were retrieved during the initial searches of the electronic databases. Ninety-eight articles were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Of the 17 remaining studies considered eligible for the detailed evaluation, 11 articles were excluded as irrelevant after reviewing the full manuscript. Finally, the data from six studies^{19–21,23–25} involving 361 patients in the ondansetron group and 326 patients in the ramosetron group were included in the meta-analysis. A detailed flow diagram of the study selection process is presented in Figure 1. The basic characteristics of each included study are listed in Table 1. The six domains evaluated for bias across all studies are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Search strategy and selection of randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis.

First author (year)	Country	Interventions	Age (years)	Patients (n)		Outcomes included in the meta-analysis
First author (year)	Country	Interventions	Age (years)	Ondansetron	Ramosetron	Outcomes included in the meta-analysis
Ansari (2010)	India	4 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	39.18 ± 4.7 39.63 ± 4.74	65	65	Nausea, retching/vomiting, dizziness, headache
Ryu (2010)	South Korea	4 mg ondansetron 8 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	45 ± 9 49 ± 11 45 ± 9	40/40	40	Nausea, retching/vomiting
Swaika (2011)	India	8 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	45.9 ± 16.07 41.5 ± 14.52	29	29	Nausea, retching/vomiting
Kim (2013)	South Korea	4 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	53.3 ± 10.9 54.8 ± 11.1	35	38	Nausea, retching/vomiting, dizziness, headache
Jamwal (2016)	India	4 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	38.32 ±10.59 38.46 ± 9.15	50	50	Nausea, retching/vomiting, dizziness, headache
Choi (2018)	South Korea	4 mg ondansetron 0.3 mg ramosetron	42.6±10.9 43.7±11.9	102	104	Nausea, retching/vomiting, dizziness, headache

Table 2.

Quality assessment of included studies.

Author (year)	Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding of participants and personnel	Blinding of outcome assessment	Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting	Other bias
Ansari (2010)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear	No	Unclear
Ryu (2010)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear
Swaika (2011)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Unclear
Kim (2013)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Unclear
Jamwal (2016)	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Unclear	No	No	Unclear
Choi (2018)	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	Unclear

PON

As shown in Figure 2, five studies^{19–21,23,25} that included 629 patients treated with ondansetron or ramosetron at different time intervals after laparoscopic surgery reported the incidence of PON events. No heterogeneity in the outcome of PON was observed between patients treated with ramosetron and those treated with ondansetron during different time periods. The RR for the periods 0 to 2, 2 to 24, and 0 to 24 hours was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68–1.01), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.69–1.11), and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74–1.02), respectively. A pooled analysis based on a fixed-effects model revealed that, at 24 to 48 hours after surgery, treatment with ramosetron was more effective at reducing the incidence of PON compared with treatment with ondansetron (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40–0.99; P = 0.05).

Figure 2.

Forest plot of relative risk from a comparison of postoperative nausea between the ramosetron and ondansetron groups: (a) 0 to 2 hours; (b) 2 to 24 hours; (c) 0 to 24 hours; (d) 24 to 48 hours.

Next, a subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether the dose of ondansetron (4 or 8 mg) might affect the incidence of PON when compared with ramosetron 0.3 mg. Compared with ondansetron 4 mg, ramosetron treatment was more effective at preventing the incidence of PON at 0 to 2 hours after surgery (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.99; P = 0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of PON observed between the ramosetron and ondansetron 4 or 8 mg groups during other time periods.

POV

As shown in Figure 3, five studies^{19,20,23–25} in 614 patients examined the incidence of POV (ondansetron, n = 326; ramosetron, n = 288). A meta-analysis of the results of these studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of POV between the two treatment groups at different time intervals within the 24-hour period after laparoscopic surgery. The RRs for 0 to 2, 2 to 24, and 0 to 24 hours were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.61–1.62), 1.12 (95% CI, 0.58–2.18), and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.64–1.62), respectively. At 24 to 48 hours after laparoscopic surgery, ramosetron 0.3 mg was significantly more effective than ondansetron 4 mg in reducing POV (RR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13–0.49; P<0.0001).

Figure 3.

Forest plot of relative risk from a comparison of postoperative vomiting between the ramosetron and ondansetron groups: (a) 0 to 2 hours; (b) 2 to 24 hours; (c) 0 to 24 hours; (d) 24 to 48 hours.

Additionally, a subgroup analysis was conducted to determine whether ondansetron dose (4 or 8 mg) might affect the incidence of POV when compared with ramosetron 0.3 mg. A fixed-effects model analysis of the pooled data revealed no statistically significant difference in the incidence of POV between the ramosetron group and the ondansetron 4 and 8 mg groups at 0 to 2 hours after laparoscopic surgery.

Side effects

Four of the included studies^20,21,23,25 reported the side effects (headache, dizziness, drowsiness) experienced by patients treated with ramosetron or ondansetron during the 48-hour period after laparoscopic surgery. A pooled analysis based on a fixed-effects model did not reveal significant differences between the ondansetron and ramosetron groups for incidence of headache (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28–1.17), dizziness (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55–1.74), or drowsiness (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55–1.75) (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Forest plot of the relative risk from a comparison of the side effects experienced by patients receiving ramosetron and ondansetron treatment: (a) dizziness; (b) headache; (c) drowsiness.

Publication bias

A funnel plot was used to qualitatively assess the potential publication bias among the studies. The partially symmetrical funnel plot presented in Figure 5 indicates that there was no potential publication bias in the included studies.

Figure 5.

Funnel plot of studies included in the meta-analysis: (a) postoperative nausea (PON) at 24 to 48 hours after laparoscopic surgery; (b) postoperative vomiting (POV) at 0 to 2 hours after laparoscopic surgery.

Discussion

PONV remains an important issue in clinical procedures involving anesthesia, and particularly in laparoscopic surgery.²⁶ In addition to its strong association with patient dissatisfaction, PONV may have adverse consequences such as unexpected hospital admission, delayed recovery, and delayed return to work.³ Therefore, the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery is typically prioritized to the same extent as is relief of postoperative pain.²⁷

Previous meta-analyses compared ramosetron and ondansetron as prophylactic treatment for PONV.^28,29 However, the clinical value of these previous meta-analyses remains uncertain because of the inclusion of different types of surgery, which was associated with an increased risk of bias. In the present meta-analysis, we specifically evaluated the effects of ramosetron and ondansetron for the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Our findings are highly relevant as they represent the first separate comparison of the effects of 0.3 mg ramosetron versus different doses of ondansetron (4 or 8 mg) for the prevention of PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Our results indicate that in comparison with ondansetron, ramosetron yielded a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of PON and POV during the first 24 to 48 hours after laparoscopic surgery. Our findings were in part consistent with those of previous meta-analyses.^28,29 Our subgroup analysis indicated that ramosetron 0.3 mg significantly reduced the incidence of PON within first the 2 hours after laparoscopic surgery when compared with ondansetron 4 mg. Additionally, during the first 24 to 48 hours after laparoscopic surgery, ramosetron showed a tendency towards more effective reduction of POV compared with ondansetron. In contrast, no statistical difference was observed between ramosetron 0.3 mg and ondansetron 8 mg for the prevention of PON or POV during any time interval within the first 48 hours after surgery. Furthermore, no inter-group differences were observed in the incidence of adverse events such as headache, dizziness, and drowsiness. Paventi et al.³⁰ reported that single-dose ondansetron 8 mg was more effective than ondansetron 4 mg for prevention of PONV after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, while Ryu et al.¹⁹ showed that the effects of ondansetron 8 mg were comparable to those of ramosetron 0.3 mg. Taken together with these earlier reports, our results strongly indicate that the antiemetic effect of ramosetron 0.3 mg is superior to that of ondansetron 4 mg and not inferior to that of ondansetron 8 mg.

Many researchers consider nausea to be induced via a wide range of irritating events in the cerebral cortex, nucleus solitaries, nerve endings in the stomach or duodenum, and chemoreceptor trigger zone (CTZ), thus stimulating vomiting centers in the brain that control nausea and vomiting.³¹ However, the exact mechanism by which pneumoperitoneum induces PONV remains unclear. Previous evidence suggests that carbon dioxide plays a central role in the development of PONV after laparoscopic surgery, as do the activation of neurogenic pathways via splanchnic pressure and traction reflexes, rapid peritoneal expansion, and increased blood pressure in the peritoneal cavity after gas insufflation.^32–34 These mechanisms activate 5HT3Rs by inducing the release of emetogenic substances such as serotonin or other neurotransmitters.³ Histamine and acetylcholine are vital neurotransmitters detected in the vomiting center, while 5-hydroxytryptamine and dopamine are vital neurotransmitters in the CTZ. Ramosetron has a higher affinity for 5HTRs than ondansetron does, and this high affinity may partly explain why ramosetron 0.3 mg yielded significant reductions in POV relative to ondansetron 4 mg in the present analysis.

This study had several notable strengths. First, our meta-analysis was based on rigorous methodology, as all identified studies were RCTs. Second, the studies included in the analysis were assessed to be of a relatively high level of quality and fulfilled our predefined inclusion criteria. Third, the baseline characteristics of the patients included in the RCT were largely comparable, suggesting that the overall patient population was generally representative.

Despite the evidence favoring ramosetron provided by the data included in this meta-analysis, several potential limitations should be mentioned. First, the literature search was limited to studies published in the English language, which might have contributed to language bias. Second, only six RCTs were included, which limited our ability to perform additional subgroup analyses of some outcomes. Therefore, we could not determine the source of heterogeneity. Third, some of the included studies had relatively small sample sizes, which might have affected the reliability of the conclusions. Finally, genetic variations among individuals might contribute to differences in response to the same form of antiemetic therapy. However, our meta-analysis only included RCTs from a single region (Asia), which may have contributed to selection and reporting biases.

Conclusion

The results of our meta-analysis indicate that ramosetron 0.3 mg was superior to ondansetron 4 mg and not inferior to ondansetron 8 mg for the prevention of PONV in patients after laparoscopic surgery. However, further well-designed, large, multi-center RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Footnotes

Authors' contributions

Yiping Li contributed to the study design and writing of the manuscript. Ruiming Deng and Juan Zhou performed the data collection and data analysis. Yuan Chen and Aiping Ouyang edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Declaration of conflicting interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Watcha

White

PF.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting. Its etiology, treatment, and prevention.

Anesthesiology 1992; 77: 162–184.

Matsuura

Inoue

Kawaguchi

The risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting between surgical patients received propofol and sevoflurane anesthesia: a matched study.

Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2016; 54: 114–120.

Gan

TJ.

Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Anesth Analg 2006; 102: 1884–1898.

Fujii

The utility of antiemetics in the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Curr Pharm Des 2005; 11: 3173–3183.

Wang

Liu

, et al. Dexamethasone reduces nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth 1999; 83: 772–775.

Cohen

Duncan

DeBoer

, et al. The postoperative interview: assessing risk factors for nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 7–16.

Stadler

Bardiau

Seidel

, et al. Difference in risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 46–52.

Tramer

MR.

Strategies for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2004; 18: 693–701.

Saberi

Pourshafie

Kazemnejad-Leili

, et al. Ondansetron or promethazine: which one is better for the treatment of acute peripheral vertigo? Am J Otolaryngol 2019; 40: 10–15.

10.

Hendren

Aponte-Feliciano

Kovac

Safety and efficacy of commonly used antiemetics.

Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2015; 11: 1753–1767.

11.

Candiotti

Kovac

Melson

, et al. A randomized, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of three different doses of palonosetron versus placebo for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg 2008; 107: 445–451.

12.

Kou

Qin

Hanif

, et al. Nephrotoxicity evaluation on cisplatin combined with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists: a retrospective study. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 1024324.

13.

Hesketh

Gandara

DR.

Serotonin antagonists: a new class of antiemetic agents.

J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83: 613–620.

14.

Tramer

Moore

Reynolds

, et al. A quantitative systematic review of ondansetron in treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting. BMJ 1997; 314: 1088–1092.

15.

Helmy

SA.

Prophylactic anti-emetic efficacy of ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy under total intravenous anaesthesia. A randomised, double-blind comparison with droperidol, metoclopramide and placebo.

Anaesthesia 1999; 54: 266–271.

16.

Naguib

el Bakry

Khoshim

, et al. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy with ondansetron, tropisetron, granisetron and metoclopramide in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized, double-blind comparison with placebo. Can J Anaesth 1996; 43: 226–231.

17.

Rabasseda

Ramosetron, a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for the control of nausea and vomiting.

Drugs Today (Barc) 2002; 38: 75–89.

18.

Kim

Baek

, et al. Comparison of ramosetron with ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynaecological surgery. Br J Anaesth 2009; 103: 549–553.

19.

Ryu

Hwang

, et al. Ramosetron versus ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 812–817.

20.

Choi

Sohn

, et al. Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for the treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded multicenter trial. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2018; 14: 601–606.

21.

Kim

Hong

Kim

, et al. Palonosetron has superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with ondansetron or ramosetron in high-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. Korean J Anesthesiol 2013; 64: 517–523.

22.

Higgins

Altman

Gotzsche

, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928.

23.

Ansari

Siddiqui

Haleem

, et al. Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for control of post-operative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Indian J Med Sci 2010; 64: 272–280.

24.

Swaika

Pal

Chatterjee

, et al. Ondansetron, ramosetron, or palonosetron: which is a better choice of antiemetic to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Anesth Essays Res 2011; 5: 182–186.

25.

Jamwal

Jatindera

Wakhloo

, et al. Safety profile of various 5HT3 receptor antagonists used for PONV prophylaxis. JK Science 2016; 18: 111–115.

26.

Aspinall

Goodman

NW.

Denial of effective treatment and poor quality of clinical information in placebo controlled trials of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of published trials.

BMJ 1995; 311: 844–846.

27.

Macario

Weinger

Truong

, et al. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 1999; 88: 1085–1091.

28.

Yokoi

Mihara

Comparative efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0186006.

29.

Gao

, et al. Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Drug Des Devel Ther 2015; 9: 2343–2350.

30.

Paventi

Santevecchi

Ranieri

Efficacy of a single-dose ondansetron for preventing post-operative nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy with sevoflurane and remifentanil infusion anaesthesia.

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2001; 5: 59–63.

31.

Ong

BC.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting: a review of current literature.

Singapore Med J 2003; 44: 366–374.

32.

Leksowski

Peryga

Szyca

Ondansetron, metoclopramid, dexamethason, and their combinations compared for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective randomized study.

Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 878–882.

33.

Caldwell

Ricotta

JJ.

Changes in visceral blood flow with elevated intraabdominal pressure.

J Surg Res 1987; 43: 14–20.

34.

Diebel

Dulchavsky

Wilson

RF.

Effect of increased intra-abdominal pressure on mesenteric arterial and intestinal mucosal blood flow.

J Trauma 1992; 33: 45–48; discussion 8–9.

Comparison of ramosetron and ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Search strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data extraction and quality assessment

Statistical analysis

Results

PON

POV

Side effects

Publication bias

Discussion

Conclusion

Footnotes

Authors' contributions

Consent for publication

Declaration of conflicting interest

Funding

References