Treatment of Postoperative Nausea-Vomiting in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Peppermint-Flavored Gum Versus Gum-Free

September 3, 2020 updated by: Canan Yılmaz, Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Education and Research Hospital

Effect of Chewing Gum on Treatment of Postoperative Nausea-vomiting in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an unwanted and distressing complication for patients. PONV affects one-third of untreated patients after general anesthesia. PONV is a hard state for patients, surgeons, and anesthesiologists and increases the anxiety of patient. There are many pharmacologic agents efficient in treatment and prophylaxis of PONV, however, these drugs have many side effects. At the same time, there are many non-pharmacological strategies for antiemetic therapies. Therefore there is an interest to nonpharmacologic agents. Such as acupuncture, ginger, peppermint …etc. Mint is a popular vegetable used as an antispasmodic, analgesic, antimicrobial and anti-vomiting treatment. The use of mint is safe and no certain side-effects and interactions. Chewing affects on postoperative bowel functions. Our hypothesis was mint chewing gum is effective on treatment of PONV. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery has a high risk for PONV in adults. In this study, our aim is to investigate the effect of mint gum chewing in the treatment of PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

The study protocol was approved by the Local Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. The study was carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the Declaration of Helsinki. 300 patients ASA I-II, between18-65 years old, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were enrolled in the study. Patients who have pharyngeal or esophageal dysfunction, significant cardiorespiratory dysfunction, phenylketonuria, inadequate to Turkish language comprehension, allergy to mint or antiemetic drugs, were not feasible to chew gum were excluded from the study. All patients were routinely monitored (electrocardiography,SpO2,noninvasive blood pressure). Demographic datas were recorded. Anesthesia induction was made with propofol 2-3mg/kg iv, fentanyl 1.5mcg /kg iv and rocuronium 1mg / kg. Anesthesia maintenance was provided with sevoflurane MAC 1.0 in 50% O2 and air mixture. Intravenous10 mg metoclopromide, 50 mg ranitidine was given to all patients and sugammadex 2 mg/kg were administered for antagonism of neuromusculer block. Before surgical incision paracetamol 1000 mg intravenous was given and 10 minutes before extubation diclofenac sodium 75 mg intramuscular was injected.At the end of surgery the patients were randomly divided into two groups. Group G (Gum group) and Group C (Control group) with the closed envelope method. Patients were followed up in the recovery unit for at least 30 minutes. Degree of nausea and Abramowitz Emezis Score were evaluated for all the patients. In Group G, peppermint gum was chewed for 15 minutes in patients with sufficient wakefulness (Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale of 5). The first gum application time was recorded. If patient refused chewing gum, ondansetron iv 4mg was given. If PONV repeated, chewing gum was given again. If PONV was persisted despite chewing gum twice, ondansetron iv 4 mg, then dexamethasone iv 4 mg, propofol 20 mg iv slowly were given, respectively. In Group C, ondansetron 4 mg iv was performed to patients whose postoperative nausea score was bigger than 3 and Abramowitz Emesis score one and above. The first drug application time was recorded. The time of PONV healed fully was recorded. If PONV was continued, it was planned to give ondansetron 4mg iv, dexamethasone 4 mg iv and propofol iv 20 mg iv, respectively. Nevertheless, it was planned to repeat ondansetron 0.15mg / kg at 4-hour intervals in patients whose PONV did not improve, with a total dose not exceeding 16mg. The patients were followed up for 24 hours in terms of PONV. In Group C, sufficient wakefulness was evaluated by Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale of 5.If there is a complaint of PONV in the Surgical Service, the gum was given in Group G, then ondansetron 0.15 mg / kg and dexamethasone were given. In Group C,ondansetron 0.15 mg / kg and dexamethasone were given. Additional antiemetic needs, adverse events were recorded postoperatively 24 hours. Patient and surgeon satisfaction were recorded for 24 hours.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
300

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Turkey
      • Bursa, Turkey, 16310
        • Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Education and Research Hospital

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

14 years to 61 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • undergone for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia
  • American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) I-II
  • Patients between the ages of 18-65

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients who did not wish to participate in the study
  • Patients who has pharyngeal or oesophagial disfunction
  • Significant cardiorespiratory disfunction,
  • Phenylketonuria,
  • Inadequate to Turkish language comprehension,
  • Allergy to mint or antiemetic drugs,
  • Patients who was not feasible to chew gum were excluded from the study.

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Factorial Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: Group Gum

Peppermint gum was chewed for 15 minutes in patients with sufficient wakefullness.

Degree of nausea and Abramowitz Emezis score were evaluated as the interventions. If PONV persists second chewing gum was gived. 15 minutes later PONV was evaluated. If PONV was persisted ondansetron 4 mg, then dexamethasone 4 mg , then propofol 10 mg intravenously were given, respectively.
Diagnostic test: Abramowitz Emesis Score
Postoperative vomiting was evaluated by Abramowitz emesis score in recovery room.
Diagnostic test: Degree of nausea
Degree of postoperative nausea was evaluated.
Diagnostic test: Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale
Patients' sufficient wakefulness was evaluated by Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale in the recovery unit.
Diagnostic test: Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (never, sometimes, usually or always)
Diagnostic test: Surgeon Satisfaction
Surgeon satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (never, sometimes, usually or always)
Other: Chewing Peppermint gum
Peppermint gum was chewed for 15 minutes in patients with sufficient wakefullness.
Active Comparator: Group Control
In Group Control, Degree of nausea and Abramowitz Emezis score were evaluated as the interventions in recovery room. If patients with moderate and severe nausea were given 4 mg ondansetron intravenously. If PONV continues, we planned to give dexamethasone 4 mg and propofol 10 mg intravenously, respectively.
Diagnostic test: Abramowitz Emesis Score
Postoperative vomiting was evaluated by Abramowitz emesis score in recovery room.
Diagnostic test: Degree of nausea
Degree of postoperative nausea was evaluated.
Diagnostic test: Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Scale
Patients' sufficient wakefulness was evaluated by Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale in the recovery unit.
Diagnostic test: Patient Satisfaction
Patient satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (never, sometimes, usually or always)
Diagnostic test: Surgeon Satisfaction
Surgeon satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (never, sometimes, usually or always)

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Degree of nausea
Time Frame: 24 hours
Degree of nausea was evaluated as 0=none, 1-3=mild, 4-6=moderate or 7-10=severe. The percentage of patients with mild, moderate or severe nausea were calculated. And also, the percentage of patients without nausea were given.
24 hours
Emesis
Time Frame: 24 hours
I used Abramowitz Emesis score. Abramowitz Emesis score was evaluated as 0=No vomiting, 1= slight vomiting (once times), 2=Moderate vomiting (two times), 3= severe vomiting (four times) or 4= Persistent vomiting (continuous).The percentage of patients with sligth, moderate, severe or persistent emesis were calculated. And also, the percentage of patients without emesis were given.
24 hours

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Antiemetic requirement
Time Frame: 24 hours
Antiemetic drugs were given if nausea score was bigger than 3 and Abramowitz emesis scorewas bigger than 1.
24 hours
Patient Satisfaction
Time Frame: 24 hours
Patient satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=usually or 3=always)
24 hours
Surgeon Satisfaction
Time Frame: 24 hours
Surgeon satisfaction was questioned. Answers were recorded as one of the choices (0=never, 1=sometimes, 2=usually or 3=always)
24 hours

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Bursa Yüksek İhtisas Education and Research Hospital

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Canan Yılmaz, Medical Doctor of Anesthesiology Department

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
May 1, 2017

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
May 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
May 3, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
August 26, 2020

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
August 28, 2020

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 4, 2020

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
September 7, 2020

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 3, 2020

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
September 1, 2020

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 2017-5/35

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings