Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/3290
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorKampo, S.-
dc.contributor.authorAfful, A. P.-
dc.contributor.authorMohammed, S.-
dc.contributor.authorNtim, M.-
dc.contributor.authorBuunaaim, A. D. B.-
dc.contributor.authorAnabah, T. W.-
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-29T11:31:42Z-
dc.date.available2021-11-29T11:31:42Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.issn1471-2252-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/123456789/3290-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) is a dreadful and uncomfortable experience that significantly detracts patients’ quality of life after surgery. This study aimed to examine the antiemetic effect of a single sub-hypnotic dose of propofol as prophylaxis for PONV. Method: In this prospective, double-blind, randomized control trial, 345 parturients presented for elective cesarean section at the Obstetric unit of Tamale Teaching Hospital were recruited. Each recruited parturient was randomly assigned to one of three groups; Propofol group (n = 115) represented those who received propofol 0.5 mg/kg, Metoclopramide group (n = 115) represented those who received metoclopramide 10 mg and, Control group (n = 115) represented those who received 0.9% saline. Spinal anesthesia with 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine 7.5–10 mg, and intrathecal morphine 0.2 mg was employed for the anesthesia. Results: The data indicate that 108 (93.9%) parturients from the control group, 10 (8.7%) from the propofol group and 8 (7.0%) from the metoclopramide group experienced some incidence of PONV. There was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV (nausea, vomiting, and none) between the propofol and the metoclopramide groups (P = 0.99;0.31; and 0.35 respectively). Parturients who received antiemetic agents were 105 (97.2%), 1 (10.0%) and 3 (37.5%) from the control, propofol and metoclopramide groups respectively. The data indicated that 98 (85.2%) parturients from the control, 3 (2.6%) from propofol group, and 100 (87.0%) from the metoclopramide group experienced some levels of pruritus. There was a significant difference in the incidence of pruritus (mild, moderate, and no pruritus) between the metoclopramide and propofol groups (P < 0.01; P < 0.01; and P < 0.01 respectively). Conclusion: A sub-hypnotic dose of propofol is effective as metoclopramide in the prevention of PONV in parturient undergoing cesarean section under spinal anesthesia with intrathecal morphine. Sub-hypnotic dose of propofol significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative pruritus following intrathecal morphine use.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVol.19;Issue 1-
dc.subjectAntiemeticen_US
dc.subjectProphylaxisen_US
dc.subjectPropofolen_US
dc.subjectMetoclopramideen_US
dc.subjectPostoperative nausea and vomitingen_US
dc.subjectPruritusen_US
dc.subjectParturienten_US
dc.subjectCesarean sectionen_US
dc.titleSUB-HYPNOTIC DOSE OF PROPOFOL AS ANTIEMETIC PROPHYLAXIS ATTENUATES INTRATHECAL MORPHINE-INDUCED POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING, AND PRURITUS IN PARTURIENT UNDERGOING CESAREAN SECTION — A RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:School of Medicine and Health Sciences



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.