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

Users Online : 59948

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
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,
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,
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
(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)
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.
On April 2011

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
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : UC22 - UC26 Full Version

Comparison between Dexamethasone Alone and its Combination with 5-Hydroxytryptamine Receptor Antagonist for Antiemesis during Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Double-blind Randomised Clinical Study

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
HG Manjunath, G Sandeep, Greeshma Murdeshwar

1. Professor and Head, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. 2. Postgraduate Student, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Greeshma Murdeshwar,
Assistant Professor, Department of Anaesthesiology, Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Near Irwin Road, Mysuru-570015, Karnataka, India.


Introduction: Post Operative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) are often associated with the laparoscopic surgeries under General Anaesthesia (GA). The PONV guidelines recommended the use of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) as the first-line prophylactic agents in patients categorised as high-risk for emesis perioperatively. There are very few studies comparing the efficacies of combinations of newer 5HT3 RA with dexamethasone.

Aim: To compare the severity of emetic episodes as well as the complete response rate to antiemetics like dexamethasone or its combination with palonosetron or ramosetron during the first 48 hours after laparoscopic surgeries.

Materials and Methods: This randomised clinical double-blind study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology at Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India, from November 2014 to August 2016 among 90 patients, aged between 18 to 60 years belonging to the American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) grade I and II scheduled for elective laparoscopic surgery under general anaesthesia. They were randomly allocated into three equal groups. Group D received dexamethasone 8 mg, group RD received ramosetron 0.3 mg with dexamethasone 8 mg, and group PD received palonosetron 0.075 mg with dexamethasone 8 mg. Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV), retching were recorded via direct questioning or by the spontaneous complaints from the patients at 2, 6, 24, 48 hours. A scoring system was used to assess PONV. Complete response rate was also noted i.e, percentage of patients in a group with absence of nausea, retching, vomiting and no requirement of rescue antiemetic medications within postoperative 48 hours.

Results: The baseline characteristics were similar in all three groups. Early and late PONV were significantly lesser with group PD compared to group D (p-value=0.01) and group RD (p-value=0.007). The complete response rate in group PD (86.6%) was significantly highest compared to group D (40%) and group RD (76%). Rescue anlgesics required was nil in group PD compared to group D (36.3%), and group RD (10%) over 48 hours.

Conclusion: Combination of palonosetron with dexamethasone is a better alternative to combination of ramosetron with dexamethasone in preventing PONV.


Pneumoperitoneum, Postoperative nausea and vomiting, Prevention and control, Serotonin

Mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors from the gastrointestinal tract as well as the Chemoreceptor Trigger Zone (CTZ) in the brain identify emetic stimulus. CTZ is outside the blood-brain barrier which readily get stimulated by drugs or toxins. The afferent pathways via CTZ and vagal mucosal pathway in the gastrointestinal system are predominantly involved in Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV).These afferent impulse further interacts between brainstem and nucleus tractus solitaries which results in emesis. Then cholinergic, dopaminergic, histaminic and serotonergic receptors mediates the vomiting due to this afferent sensations (1).

The PONV is defined as any nausea, retching or vomiting occurring during the first 24-48 hours after surgery in inpatients (2) With modern anaesthesia practices, the incidence of PONV has come down by 50% especially with the use of non opioid medications (3). The overall incidence of PONV is reported to be between 20-30%. (4)

The PONV is often associated with Laparoscopic Surgeries (LS) under General Anaesthesia (GA). This can be because of cabon dioxide (CO2) absorption intravascularly which causes cerebral vasodilatation and raised intracranial pressure (5). Also pneumoperitoneum causes mesenteric ischaemia releasing emetogenic mediators like serotonin (6).

Several factors increase PONV incidence (7). Excess PONV can also lead to complications like wound dehiscence or anastomosis disruption, pulmonary aspiration, surgical site bleeding and dehydration and its consequences (8). Eventually PONV becomes uneconomical to patients.

Conventional antiemetics used such as anticholinergics, dopamine receptor antagonist, antihistaminics although effective, possess clinical significant side effects like dry mouth, tachycardia and extrapryamidal symptoms (9). Dexamethasone has been reported to be effective in reducing PONV. It is also anti-inflammatory at operative site (10),(11).

Serotonin, which is present in gut enteroendocrine cells, becomes exocytosed due to mechanical stimulus, bacterial toxins or cytotoxic drugs. Serotonin can then trigger vomiting by increasing bowel movements or by stimulating primary afferent nerves via 5-hydroxytrptamine 3 receptors (12).

5-Hydroxytrptamine-3 Receptor Antagonist (5HT3RA) possesses property of superior antiemetic prophylaxis. Older 5HT3RA are the first generation 5HT3RA like ondansetron, granisetron and dolasetron which are carbazole, indazole and indole derivates, respectively (12). Out of these, ondansetron with relatively shorter half-life of three hours was used widely to prevent PONV (13). Ondansetron received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1991. Palonosetron and ramosetron are recently introduced 5HT3RA. It is different from the earlier 5HT3RA as ramosetron is tetrahydrobenzimidazole derivative (14). Ramosetron also has higher 5-HT3 receptor affinity and slows dissociation when compared to the other older agents.It has a half-life of around five hours. Palonosetron is a second generation 5HT3RA with stereogenic centres and has more than 30-fold higher affinity for 5-HT3 receptors (12). It is more potent compared to other 5HT3RA with elimination half-life of 40 hours. Palanosetron also inhibits responses induced by substance-P, the dominant mediator of delayed emesis (15).

Multimodal antiemetic treatment enhance individual antiemetic drug actions to control PONV among high risk patients. Dexamethasone combination with other 5HT3RA are effective to prevent PONV after laparoscopic surgeries (16),(17).

Fonseca NM et al., study showed superior effect of palonosetron over ondansetron and dexamethasone to control PONV among patients posted for video cholecystectomy (3). A combination of ramosetron with dexamethasone showed better control of PONV, followed by ramosetron alone, and then dexamethasone alone in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (16). Most of the studies are of older 5HT3RA with dexamethasone rather than newer 5HT3RA (18). Very few studies compared these two (palanosetron and ramosetron) antiemetic drugs.

Hence, the present study was done to know the difference in efficacy of dexamethasone alone and its combination with 5HT3RA like ramosetron and palonosetron. The primary objective was to compare the severity of PONV as well as complete response during the first 48 hours after LS. The secondary objective was to compare rescue antiemetics given in all the three groups and observe for any adverse effects.

Material and Methods

This randomised clinical double-blind study was conducted in the Department of Anaesthesiology at Mysore Medical College and Research Institute, Mysuru, Karnataka, India, from November 2014 to August 2016 among 90 patients. The study plan was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee (ECR/134/Inst/KA/2013) and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Inclusion criteria: Patients belonging to American Society of Anaesthesiologist (ASA) grade I and II, posted for elective laparoscopic surgeries; of either sex, between the age group 18-60 years, and having body mass index between 18-25 kg/m2. The study by Apfel CC et al., showed that four factors predicted the incidence of PONV which includes female gender, history of motion sickness or PONV, non smoking and the use of postoperative opioids. Incidences of PONV were 10%, 21%, 39%, 61% and 79% if none, one, two, three or four of these risk factors were present, respectively (19). Patients having any of these two or less than two predictors were included in the study to minimise the bias.

Exclusion criteria: Pregnancy, history of nausea, vomiting, retching or antiemetic consumption within 24 hours of LS, chronic opioid use or corticosteroid therapy, motion sickness, severe liver or renal disease and immunosuppression, LS converted to open surgeries and lasting for more than 120 minutes were excluded from the study.

Sample size calculation: Sample size was calculated by a power analysis, while designing the study. Allowing an α error of 5% and a β error of 20%; it was estimated that a minimum of 30 patients per group would be required to show a 30% difference (from 60% to 42%) in the incidence of PONV (20),(21).

Cases were allocated randomly into three groups based on shuffled opaque sealed envelope technique, with 30 patients in each group (Table/Fig 1). Antiemetic drugs were given intravenously (i.v.) as follows:

• Group D: Patients received dexamethasone (8 mg) alone
• Group RD: Patients received ramosetron (0.3 mg) with dexamethasone (8 mg)
• Group PD: Patients received palonosetron 0.075 mg with dexamethasone (8 mg).

The study drug containing required combinations diluted to volume of 5 mL using normal saline was prepared by the anaesthesiologist who was not involved in the study.

Study Procedure

Detailed preanaesthetic evaluation was done on the previous day. Subjects were nil per oral overnight. When patient were shifted to operation theatre, ASA recommended monitors were connected and baseline vital parameters recorded. Intravenous fluids started. Intravenous (i.v.) fentanyl 1 μg/kg and midazolam 0.02 mg/kg were given as a premedications followed by study drugs. After preoxygenation, patients were induced with i.v. thiopentone sodium 5 mg/kg and i.v. vecuronium bromide 0.1 mg/kg. Intubation was done with a proper sized endotracheal tube and its position was confirmed and fixed. Anaesthesia was maintained with oxygen 33%; nitrous oxide 66% and isoflurane 0.6%. Patients were ventilated to maintain end tidal carbon dioxide between 35-40 mmHg. Intra-abdominal pressure was maintained between 10-15 mmHg. After the completion of surgery patients were reversed with i.v. glycopyrrolate 0.02 mg/kg and i.v. neostigmine 0.5 mg/kg. After confirmation of the complete reversal, patients were extubated and shifted to postoperative care unit. Intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg was given for postoperative pain.

The intraoperative monitoring and postoperative observations were done by another anaesthesiologist who had administered the study drugs but unaware of the contents of the syringes. Thus, the patient and the observer were blinded for the study drugs.

PONV: All episodes of PONV were recorded via direct questioning, by an observer (blinded to the study group) or by the spontaneous complaints from the patients at 2, 6, 24, 48 hours. PONV assessment scores were:

• 0- no nausea;
• 1- nausea only;
• 2- nausea with retching;
• 3- vomiting

Nausea was defined as a subjectively uncomfortable sensation associated with awareness of urge to vomit. Retching was defined as forceful contraction of the respiratory muscle without expulsion of gastric contents. Vomiting was defined as forceful expulsion of gastric contents by mouth. Complete response rate was defined as percentage of patients in a group with absence of nausea, retching, vomiting and no requirement of rescue antiemetic medications within postoperative 48 hours.

Rescue antiemetic: PONV score of 2 or 3, received rescue antiemetic i.v. metaclopramide 10 mg. Early PONV and late PONV were considered, if it occurs within or after 6 hours respectively.

Adverse effects: Patients were monitored for adverse effects like headache, dizziness, drowsiness, flushing and sedation.

Statitical Analysis

Continuous data was expressed as mean±standard deviation or median (interquartile range) whereas number or percentage was used for categorical data. Independent t-test was used for continuous variables and Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis of several means are equal. All the statistical calculations were done through Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for windows (version 17.0). A p-value <0.05 was considered to be significant association.


Demographic characteristics of patients and surgical characteristics did not differ among the three groups (Table/Fig 2).

Whenever the patients had PONV score of more than 2, they were not followed up for the next time interval and accordingly the number of patients were decreased in that respective group during the next time interval (Table/Fig 3). Early PONV score was significantly lower in the combination drug groups PD and RD, compared to the dexamethasone alone group D. But there was no significant difference between group D and group RD with respect to the incidence of late PONV (after 24 hours). Though the early PONV was better controlled by both the antiemetic combination, late PONV was significantly better controlled in the group PD (Table/Fig 3).

Complete response rate for early PONV (upto six hours postoperatively) was significantly lowest in group D compared to groups RD and PD. Both the combination drugs were statistical significantly effective than dexamethasone alone. Complete response rate for late PONV (from 6 hours to 48 hours postoperatively) was highest in group PD. But when complete respose rate for late PONV was compared between group D and group RD specially after 24 hours there was no significant difference indicating better control of late PONV in group PD rather than group D or group RD (Table/Fig 4). No rescue antiemetics were required in the groups PD at all over 48 hours. No rescue antiemetics were required in group RD to control PONV in the early postoperative period, but it was required in late postoperative period which was significantly higher compared to group PD. Rescue antiemetics were given to control both early and late PONV in group D (Table/Fig 5).

There were no adverse effects noted in any of the groups during first 2 hours; 2-6 hours; 6-24 hours or 24-48 hours follow-up.


In the present study, the early and late PONV incidence rate was significantly higher and complete response rate was significantly lower in the group receiving dexamethasone alone, compared to the antiemetic drug combination group. Rescue antiemetic received was also higher in the former group compared to the combination drugs groups.

In a systematic review by Heinz et al., a number of randomised controlled trials were compared where dexamethasone alone or its combination with 5HT3RA were used to control PONV. They concluded that the combination has a superior antiemetic effect. In their study an average incidence rate of PONV was derived. The average incidence of nausea during early and late postoperative period were 4% and 28%, respectively; the average incidence of vomiting during early and late postoperative period were 2% and 23%, respectively, with the combination of dexamethasone and 5HT3RA (17). However, the review was based on studies using dexamethasone with i.v. ondansetron 4 mg or i.v. granisetron 40 μg/kg. Hence, the incidence of PONV was slightly higher with the combination drugs compared to the present study, where palonosetron and ramosetron combined with dexamethasone were used.

In the index study, the number patients that needed the rescue analgesics were 23.3% and 13%, respectively, at early and late postoperative period with dexamethasone. The number of patients requiring rescue analgesics with dexamethasone alone as antiemetic was higher compared to its combination with 5HT3RA. The biological half-life of dexamethasone is 36-72 hours. Its antiemetic effect is due to prostaglandin antagonism or endorphin release; it can also change the blood brain barrier permeability to serum proteins [11,17]. These mechanism of actions of dexamethasone, when combined with 5HT3RA, exhibits synergism by changing receptor affinity and sensitivity to 5HT3RA (22).

In the present study, among the combination drugs, early PONV was nil in both the groups, whereas, the late PONV rate was higher in group RD compared to group PD. Overall, the complete response rate was also higher in group PD (96.6%) compared to group RD (86.2%) at 48 hours.

Park JW et al., compared the antiemetic effect for PONV between palonosetron alone and its combination with dexamethasone, among patients posted for gynaecological LS. The incidence of PONV was 9.8% with palanosetron monotherapy, whereas, it was 14% with the combination therapy (23). Hence, the study showed the antiemetic effect produced by palonosetron as a monotherapy was almost similar with its combination with dexamethasone. This is because the authors used a lower dexamethasone dose of 4 mg, whereas, in the present study, the standard antiemetic dose of 8 mg was used. Because of this lower dose of dexamethasone in Park JW et al., study, early and late PONV incidence were higher and complete response rate was lower in combination group over a period of 24 hours compared to the palonosetron and dexamethasone combination group in the present study (23). Also, this might be because of Rhodex index which they used to detect PONV. This index uses eight questionnaires which get sensitised to even small emetic feeling as the questions are related to detailed individual’s perception of duration and frequency of nausea, retching and vomiting. It also assesses distress raised due to PONV (23).

In the study conducted by Cho E et al., immediately after induction dexamethasone 8 mg or normal saline was given according to the allocated group and postoperatively fentanyl 20 μg/kg with palonosetron 0.075 mg infusion was started to be delivered over 48 hours. There was significant lower rate of PONV with combination drugs compared to palonosetron alone. The PONV rate was 47% and 52% at early and late postoperative period respectively with palonosetron and dexamethasone combination. This was higher than what PONV rate was derived in the present study with similar combination of drugs. This might be because of fentanyl infusion used postoperatively as analgesia in the former study. Fentanyl is an opiod which by acting on μ receptors at CTZ can trigger vomiting (22).

A meta-analysis was conducted to study the efficacy of palonosetron and ramosetron which included eleven studies and 1373 patients. The authors included only the studies which used standard doses of palonosetron (0.075 mg) and ramosetron 0.3 mg without any other adjuncts. Palonosetron as antiemetic was found to be more effective in delayed postoperative period after 24 hours ( relative risk- 0.56; p-value=0.033), especially in laparoscopic surgeries whereas ramosetron was more effective for PONV at early postoperative period upto 6 hours (relative risk-8.47; p-value=0.013) especially in spine surgeries. Even in the present study, palonosetron with dexamethasone combination significantly better controlled PONV at late postoperative period than ramosetron and dexamethasone combination (24).

This superior action of palonosetron over ramosetron can be attributed to its additional substance-P inhibitory action as well as its 5HT3 receptor interaction in an allosteric, positively cooperative manner, at sites different from where other 5HT3RA bind. This also explains for its long duration of action (25).

There are also studies showing the results that ramosetron is better than palonosetron to control PONV. Ahn EJ et al., compared PONV with palonosetron and ramosetron in patients posted for gynecological laparoscopic surgeries receiving intravenous opioid based patient controlled analgesia. They inferred that ramosetron has better PONV control than palonosetron. This could be because of higher consumption of opioid based infusion postoperatively in palonosetron than ramosetron group (26).

Swaika S et al., found ramosetron to be more effective than palonosetron to control PONV (27). This effect of ramosetron was significant during early postoperative period with 2 hour period whereas at late postoperative period after 2 hours up to 24 there was no significant difference between palonosetron and ramosetron antiemetic efficacy. In the present study, the antiemetic efficacy up to 48 hours postoperatively was studied. There was a significantly higher number of patients with PONV with ramosetron than palonosetron between 24 to 48 hours monitoring interval.


Different types of laparoscopic surgeries were included. The number of patients with Nasogastric Tube (NGT) were not evaluated seperately, because NGT itself can trigger PONV.


Combination of antiemetics with dexamethasone prevents early PONV than dexamethasone alone. Combination of palonosetron 0.075 mg with dexamethasone 8 mg is effective in preventing late PONV, in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgeries under general anaesthesia, compared to the combination of ramosetron 0.3 mg with dexamethasone 8 mg or dexamethasone 8 mg alone.


Shaikh SI, Nagarekha D, Hegade G, Marutheesh M. Postoperative nausea and vomiting: A simple yet complex problem. Anesth Essays Res. 2016;10(3):388-96. [crossref] [PubMed]
Islam S, Jain PN. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV): A review article. Indian J Anaesth. 2004;48(4):253-58.
Fonseca NM , Pedrosae LR, Melof N, de Avila Oliveira R. Effect of palonosetron, ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in video cholecystectomy with total venous anesthesia with propofolremifentanil- randomized clinical trial. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2020;70(5):464-70. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kovac AL. Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Drugs. 2000;59(2):213-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
Koivusalo AM, Kellokumpu I, Lindgren L. Postoperative drowsiness and emetic sequelae correlate to total amount of carbon dioxide used during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 1997;11(1):42-44. [crossref] [PubMed]
Diebel LN, Dulchavsky SA, Wilson RF. Effect of increased intra-abdominal pressure on mesenteric arterial and intestinal mucosal blood flow. J Trauma. 1992;33(1):45-48; discussion 48-49. [crossref] [PubMed]
Gan TJ. Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2006;102(6):1884-98. [crossref] [PubMed]
Andrew PLR. Physiology of nausea and vomiting. Br J Anaesth. 1992;69(Suppl. 1):2s-19s. [crossref] [PubMed]
Watcha MF, White PF. Postoperative nausea and vomiting: Its etiology, treatment and Prevention. Anesthesiology. 1992;77(1):162-84. [crossref] [PubMed]
Haynes R. Adrenocorticotropic hormone: Adrenocortical steroids and their synthetic analogs-inhibitors of the synthesis and actions of adrenocortical hormones. In: Goodman Gilman A, Gilman LS, Rall TW, Murad F, eds. The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. 8th ed. New York: Pergamon Press; 1990:1447-48.
Wang JJ, Ho ST, Liu YH, Lee SC, Liu YC, Liao YC. Dexamethasone reduces nausea and vomiting after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Anaesth. 1999;83(5):772-75. [crossref] [PubMed]
Smith HS, Cox LR, Smith EJ. 5 HT3 receptor antagonist for the treatment of nausea and vomiting- Review artcle. Ann Palliat Med. 2012;1(2):115-20.
Alon E, Himmelseher S. Ondansetron in the treatment of postoperative vomiting: A randomized, double-blind comparison with droperidol and metoclopramide. Anesth Analg. 1992;75 (4):561-65. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kim KR, Kang G, Ki MS, Shim HJ, Hwang JE, Bae WK, et al. A randomized, doubleblind pilot study of dose comparison of ramosetron to prevent chemotherapyinduced nausea and vomiting. Biomed Res Int. 2015;523601 (2015):01-07. [crossref] [PubMed]
Muchata NA, Micheal JP. Management of postoperative nausea and vomiting; Focus on palonosetron. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2009; 5(1):21-34. [crossref]
Jo YY, Lee JW, Shim JK, Lee WK, Choi YS. Ramosetron, dexamethasone, and their combination for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in women undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc. 2012;26(8):2306-11. [crossref] [PubMed]
Henzi I, Walder HB, Trame MR. Dexamethasone for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A quantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:186-94. [crossref] [PubMed]
Dabbous AS, Jabbour-Khoury SI, Nasr VG, Moussa AA, Zbeidy RA, Khouzam NE et al. Dexamethasone with either granisetron or ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic surgery. Middle East J Anesthesiol. 2010;20(4):565-70.
Apfel CC, Laara E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: Conclusions from crossvalidations between two centers. Anesthesiology. 1999;91(3):693-700. [crossref] [PubMed]
Park SK, Cho EJ. A randomized, double-blind trial of palonosetron compared with ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting after gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. J Int Med Res. 2011;39(2):399-407. [crossref] [PubMed]
Choi DK, Chin JH, Lee EH, Lim OB, Chung CH, Ro YJ, et al. Prophylactic control of post-operative nausea and vomiting using ondansetron and ramosetron after cardiac surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54(8):962-69. [crossref] [PubMed]
Cho E, Kim DH, Shin S, Kim SH, Oh YJ, Choi YS. Efficacy of palonosetron– dexamethasone combination versus palonosetron alone for preventing nausea and vomiting related to opioid-based analgesia: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial. Int J Med Sci. 2018;15(10):961-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
Park JW, Jun JW, Lim YH, Lee SS, Yoo BH, Kim KM, et al. The comparative study to evaluate the effect of palonosetron monotherapy versus palonosetron with dexamethasone combination therapy for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;63(4):334-39. [crossref] [PubMed]
Kim MS, Park JH, Choi YS, Park SH, Shin S. Efficacy of palonosetron vs. ramosetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Yonsei Med J. 2017;58(4):848-58. [crossref] [PubMed]
Rojas C, Stathis M, Thomas AG, Massuda EB, Alt J, Zhang J, et al. Palonosetron exhibits unique molecular interactions with the 5-HT3 receptor. Anesth Analg. 2008;107(4):469-78. [crossref] [PubMed]
Ahn EJ, Choi GJ, Kang H, Baek CW, Jung YH, Woo YC. Comparison of ramosetron with palonosetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving opioid-based intravenous patientcontrolled analgesia after gynecological laparoscopy. Biomed Res Int. 2017;9341738:01-06. [crossref] [PubMed]
Swaika S, Pal A, Chatterjee S, Saha D, Dawar N. 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(2):182-86. [crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/59426.17032

Date of Submission: Aug 01, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Aug 30, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Sep 19, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• 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 X-checker: Aug 03, 2022
• Manual Googling: Sep 12, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Sep 16, 2022 (16%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

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)