Next Article in Journal
Quality of Life Assessment and Clinical Implications for Women with Endometriosis Through Validated Tools: A Narrative Review
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Bone Mineral Density in Children with Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip Joint: Possible Risk Factors for Osteopenia and Osteoporosis
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Medicina
Volume 61
Issue 10
10.3390/medicina61101728
medicina-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Opioid-Associated Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis

by
Sueyoung Cho
1,
Heesoo Bang
1,
Sangyoon Shin
1,
Hyunjoo Kim
2,
Seohyeon Park
3,
Paul S. Lee
4,* and
Eunkyung Euni Lee
1,*
1
Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Natural Products Research Institute, College of Pharmacy, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea
2
College of Pharmacy, Jeju National University, Jeju 63241, Republic of Korea
3
Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
4
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Medicina 2025, 61(10), 1728; https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101728
Submission received: 16 August 2025 / Revised: 18 September 2025 / Accepted: 19 September 2025 / Published: 23 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Intensive Care/ Anesthesiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated the effects of postoperative opioid use on nausea and vomiting in women undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and RISS was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A frequentist network meta-analysis was performed to compare the risks of opioid-associated postoperative nausea and vomiting (O-PONV). Quantitative statistics were presented in forest plots, and the ranking of treatments was determined using the P-score. Results: Seventeen studies involving 1315 participants and 18 postoperative analgesic interventions were included. No significant differences were found among the opioid monotherapies—buprenorphine, butorphanol, fentanyl, oxycodone, sufentanil, and tapentadol. However, among the combination therapies, oxycodone/ketorolac therapy was associated with a significantly higher risk of O-PONV than other ketorolac-containing regimens, including dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and fentanyl. Conclusions: No significant differences in O-PONV risk were observed among the six opioid monotherapy groups. An opioid-sparing regimen, such as dexmedetomidine/ketorolac, showed a lower risk of O-PONV than an oxycodone-based regimen, underscoring the importance of incorporating patient-centered considerations, such as patient preference and route of administration, into postoperative pain management.

1. Introduction

Hysterectomy is one of the most frequently performed gynecological procedures worldwide, with indications ranging from benign conditions such as uterine fibroids and endometriosis to more serious pathologies, including gynecological cancer and pelvic support disorders [1,2,3]. The choice of surgical approach varies, with abdominal, vaginal, and laparoscopic hysterectomy being the most common techniques [4]. Over the past few decades, laparoscopic hysterectomy has gained widespread adoption as a minimally invasive alternative, largely because of its favorable perioperative outcomes [5,6].
Pain following hysterectomy, as with any surgery, is a well-documented clinical concern, with the intensity ranging from moderate to severe depending on the individual patient [7]. Evidence indicates that laparoscopic hysterectomy is associated with significantly reduced postoperative pain and morbidity compared to abdominal hysterectomy [8,9,10]. As modern perioperative medicine increasingly emphasizes patient-centered care, the optimization of postoperative pain control remains a critical goal for healthcare providers [11]. Effective pain management not only enhances patient comfort but also positively influences quality of life, accelerates functional recovery, and reduces the risk of complications [11,12]. Moreover, minimizing opioid-related adverse events, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), is particularly important given its impact on patient satisfaction, recovery trajectory, and healthcare utilization [11].
Opioids remain the cornerstone of perioperative analgesia because of their proven efficacy in managing moderate-to-severe postoperative pain [13]. They are frequently administered either as monotherapy or in combination with non-opioid analgesics to achieve multimodal pain control [14]. However, opioid use is often complicated by adverse effects, most notably opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) [14]. In addition, evaluating independent effects of OINV after surgery is even more challenging as the incidence and severity of the adverse outcomes can vary considerably among individuals, complicating the ability to make clinically meaningful comparisons between different opioid agents [14]. Notably, women have a higher incidence of PONV than men, making this an especially relevant concern in patients undergoing gynecological surgery, such as laparoscopic hysterectomy [13,15].
Given these considerations, there is a critical need for high-quality evidence to systematically evaluate and quantify the comparative risk of O-PONV among various opioids in this patient population. Such evidence could inform more individualized analgesic strategies, enabling clinicians to balance effective pain relief with the minimization of side effects. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the incidence of nausea or vomiting associated with different postoperative opioid regimens in women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy.

2. Materials and Methods

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [16].

2.1. Eligibility

A systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed based on the following PICO framework:
(1)
Population (P): women who underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy,
(2)
Intervention/Comparison (I/C): any pairwise comparisons of opioids or comparisons of opioids with non-opioid analgesics for postoperative pain management, and
(3)
Outcome (O): postoperative nausea or vomiting.

2.2. Search Strategy

We searched PubMed (NLM®), EMBASE (OvidSP), the Cochrane Library (Cochrane), and RISS (Korea Education and Research Information Service) from their respective inception dates to July 2025. The complete search strategy is presented in Table S1. To ensure comprehensiveness, all available opioid agents listed in accredited pharmaceutical databases, including Micromedex (Merative™, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), were included as keywords across all search fields. All retrieved studies were managed using EndNote 20 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) to facilitate systematic screening and identification. A language filter was applied only to English-language publications.

2.3. Study Selection

Two authors (S.C. and H.B.) independently screened and reviewed the retrieved articles to assess their eligibility based on the inclusion criteria predefined in the PICO statement. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third author (E.L.) until a consensus was reached. Studies were excluded in the following order: (1) non-RCTs; (2) no postoperative opioid use in any study arm; (3) non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., diet, exercise) or procedures (e.g., transversus abdominis plane block) in any study arm; and (4) studies comparing the same opioid by route, dose, or timing of administration.
The included studies were summarized by the country of origin, number of participants, drugs used for postoperative pain management, and reported incidence of nausea or vomiting.

2.4. Definition of Independent and Dependent Variables

The independent variable in this study was the use of postoperative opioid or non-opioid analgesics, administered either as monotherapy or in combination. An intervention was considered postoperative if it was administered at the end of the surgery, in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), or was explicitly described. The dependent variable was the incidence of nausea or vomiting reported at any time within 72 h after surgery.
For studies that reported nausea and vomiting as separate outcomes, higher value was used for subsequent reporting and analysis as we considered the adverse effects of either nausea or vomiting negatively affected patients’ quality of life. When the incidence data were reported at multiple time points, the maximum value was selected as we considered the highest potential of causing adverse outcome was clinically important. If the incidence was presented using severity scores, a score of 0 was categorized as the absence of nausea or vomiting, whereas scores above zero were categorized as the presence of nausea or vomiting.

2.5. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool [17]. This tool includes five domains: bias arising from the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. Each domain was rated as “low,” “some concerns,” or “high” for each study. Two authors (H.aB. and S.C.) independently assessed the risk of bias in all included studies in accordance with the guidelines. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussions with a third author (E.L.).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

A frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using the “netmeta” package in R version 4.4.2 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and the “network” package in STATA/SE 19 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) [18,19]. Study characteristics, including design, interventions, sample size, and outcome measures, were extracted and summarized. Heterogeneity among the studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic, and all analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Inconsistency was tested using a design-by-treatment interaction model. Quantitative results are presented in league tables and forest plots. The ranking of treatments was determined using the P-score. If incidence data were reported only in graphical form in the source studies, numerical data were extracted using WebPlotDigitizer (version 5.0; Automeris, TX, USA). Potential publication bias was evaluated using comparison-adjusted funnel plots to graphically assess asymmetry.

3. Results

3.1. Selected Studies

A total of 535 relevant studies were identified in the initial search, of which 96 duplicate studies were excluded. After screening by title and abstract, 365 studies were excluded. An additional ten studies were excluded because their full texts were unavailable. Following full-text assessment of the remaining studies, 17 were deemed eligible for quantitative analysis (Figure 1).

3.2. Study Characteristics

The 17 included studies comprised 1315 participants. Nine studies were conducted in Republic of Korea [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], four in China [29,30,31,32], two in Norway [33,34], one in Italy [35], and one in India [36]. Oxycodone was the most commonly used analgesic (Table 1).

3.3. Risk of Bias Assessment

In total, five studies (29%) had a high risk of bias, and three studies (18%) were rated as having some concerns. Of the six studies included in the NMA of monotherapy [20,22,31,32,33,36], one was judged to have a high risk of bias [22], one was rated as having some concerns [20], and the remaining studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias. Of the four studies included in the NMA of combination regimens [21,23,24,27], three were determined to have a high risk of bias [21,23,27] (Figure 2).

3.4. Network Meta Analyses (NMA)

We conducted an NMA of 17 studies, representing 18 different postoperative analgesic regimens. Most of the comparisons were connected to either oxycodone monotherapy or fentanyl/ketorolac combination therapy (Figure S1). The risk associated with dexmedetomidine/ketorolac combination therapy was significantly lower than that associated with dexmedetomidine monotherapy (OR = 0.0105 [95% CI: 0.0001–0.7864], I2 = 0%, Figure S1). However, the total administered doses of dexmedetomidine could not be compared because one study reported only a range of infusion rates.
Of the six studies comparing postoperative opioid monotherapy pairs, five were included in the monotherapy analysis. These studies represented six different postoperative analgesic regimens. The NMA findings showed no significant differences in the risk of nausea or vomiting (I2 = 41.6%; Figure 3). There was no evidence of inconsistency (p = 0.19).
Four studies of ketorolac-containing combination regimens were available for NMA synthesis. Compared with the oxycodone/ketorolac combination regimen, other ketorolac-containing combination regimens showed a lower risk of nausea or vomiting: dexmedetomidine/ketorolac (odd ratio [OR] = 0.0267 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0013–0.5442]), fentanyl/ketorolac (OR = 0.2106 [95% CI: 0.1059–0.4188]), and remifentanil/ketorolac (OR = 0.2034 [95% CI: 0.0661–0.6259]) (I2 = 0%; Figure 4). This inconsistency was not statistically significant (p = 0.96).
Detailed pairwise comparisons of monotherapies, ketorolac-containing combination regimens, and the overall network are provided in league tables (Figure S2). Three funnel plots were generated to evaluate potential publication bias (Figure S3). The plots for monotherapies and ketorolac-containing combination regimens showed asymmetry, indicating a possible risk of publication bias.

4. Discussion

This systematic review and network meta-analysis, which included 17 trials and 1315 participants, examined the incidence of O-PONV using opioid monotherapy and combination regimens containing non-opioid analgesics. Eighteen active treatment regimens for postoperative pain management after laparoscopic hysterectomy were assessed. Among the 17 studies, 9 were assessed as having a low risk of bias, 3 as having some concerns, and 5 as having a high risk. This distribution allowed for a reasonably robust synthesis of evidence through NMA, thereby enhancing confidence in the comparative estimates of O-PONV risk.
One notable finding was the absence of significant differences in O-PONV risk among the six opioid monotherapies studied. Oxycodone, a commonly used opioid, did not differ significantly from buprenorphine, butorphanol, fentanyl, sufentanil, or tapentadol in terms of associated nausea or vomiting. This aligns with previous research reporting that the choice of opioid had little effect on O-PONV risk, except for buprenorphine, which was the only opioid shown to have a higher risk than intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia with morphine [13]. However, in our analysis, buprenorphine was administered epidurally, a route associated with a lower O-PONV risk than IV administration [37,38], which may explain this discrepancy.
In contrast to monotherapy, certain ketorolac-based combination regimens have demonstrated more favorable O-PONV profiles. Dexmedetomidine/ketorolac, fentanyl/ketorolac, and remifentanil/ketorolac were associated with significantly lower O-PONV risk compared with oxycodone/ketorolac. Notably, dexmedetomidine/ketorolac demonstrated the most pronounced risk reduction, likely reflecting their non-opioid mechanisms of action [20]. As three of the four combination regimens were at high risk of bias, the finding should require careful interpretation and further studies with high validity are needed.
Our findings underscore the importance of multimodal analgesic strategies, particularly those that minimize opioid exposure while maintaining effective pain control. The results suggest that the choice of analgesic regimen should not rely solely on opioid type or potency but should prioritize patient-centered care, factoring in patient preferences, prior O-PONV history, and optimal routes of administration, to optimize both pain control and patient comfort in the postoperative setting. Tailoring analgesic strategies to opioid-sparing and multimodal approaches may reduce postoperative complications and improve patient recovery. These findings may serve as a reference for clinicians in various countries when selecting opioid and non-opioid analgesics for patients at a higher risk of developing O-PONV.
A key strength of this study was its originality in addressing a clinically important and underexplored research question: the comparative impact of various analgesic strategies on O-PONV, specifically in the context of laparoscopic hysterectomy. Although previous meta-syntheses have largely focused on the efficacy of opioids for pain control across different surgical procedures [8,12,39,40], few studies have specifically examined O-PONV in this patient population.
Although our search identified various opioid monotherapies and combination regimens, the use of NMA allowed us to overcome the limitations of limited direct head-to-head comparisons. The NMA enabled indirect comparisons across regimens and facilitated the quantitative synthesis of the available evidence. By incorporating both direct and indirect comparisons, the NMA provided a more comprehensive evaluation and generated clinical evidence regarding the relative effects of opioid regimens on O-PONV. Using this approach, the relative effectiveness of different opioid regimens was estimated.
Our study had several limitations. First, the analysis did not include a sufficient number of studies to evaluate the dose-dependent effects of opioids, variations in routes of administration, the timing of outcome assessments, or baseline patient characteristics. Because opioid analgesics are known to exert dose-dependent effects on nausea and vomiting, future studies should investigate these relationships more explicitly [41]. Second, the moderate level of heterogeneity observed from the analysis including studies with monotherapies may be attributable to variations in opioid regimens and other treatment-related factors. Furthermore, the varying granularity of dosage information across studies, and potential lingering effects of perioperative analgesia warrant cautious interpretation of the results. Third, the included studies indicated that opioid prescription practices after laparoscopic hysterectomy varied geographically. For example, in a previous study, oxycodone was the most frequently used opioid in high-income countries, whereas tramadol and codeine were more commonly used in lower-resource settings [42]. Differences in available medications, clinician preferences, and postoperative pain management strategies may have influenced the observed outcomes. As most analyzed studies were from East Asia, additional studies across other regions, such as North America and Europe, and beyond are required to broaden applicability. Lastly, recognizing the multifactorial etiology of PONV—and opioid use as one of its contributing factors—distinguishing OINV from PONV or other treatment-related adverse effects can be challenging [7]. Our study defined the study outcome as opioid-associated postoperative nausea and vomiting (O-PONV) rather than OINV to more accurately represent nausea and vomiting events linked to postoperative opioid use while considering other factors that were potentially associated with nausea and vomiting such as patient characteristics and surgery settings. Future research should aim to collect more standardized and detailed data on opioid type, dose, and route of administration, as well as employ uniform definitions of OINV, to enable more robust comparisons and guide optimized postoperative pain management. Furthermore, additional studies using real-world data to capture patient preferences and humanistic outcomes are warranted to better inform patient-centered postoperative pain management strategies.

5. Conclusions

We found no significant differences in the risk of nausea or vomiting among the six opioid monotherapies, underscoring the importance of incorporating patient-centered considerations, such as the preferred agent and route of administration, into postoperative pain management. An opioid-sparing regimen of dexmedetomidine combined with ketorolac may suggest a lower risk of O-PONV than an oxycodone-based regimen. This finding highlights the potential advantages of multimodal approach with non-opioid analgesia and underscores the need for further studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/medicina61101728/s1, Table S1: Full Search Strategy; Figure S1: Network meta-analysis of all studies; Figure S2: League table based on network odds ratios; Figure S3: Comparison-adjusted funnel plot assessing publication bias.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.E.L. and P.S.L.; Methodology, S.C., H.B., and S.S.; Software, S.C. and S.S.; Validation, S.C., H.B., and S.P.; Formal analysis, S.C. and S.S.; Investigation, E.E.L., H.K., S.S., and P.S.L.; Resources, S.P., H.K., and S.S.; Data curation, S.C. and H.B.; Writing—original draft preparation, S.C., H.B., S.S., H.K., S.P., P.S.L. and E.E.L.; Writing—review and editing, E.E.L. and P.S.L.; Visualization, S.C. and S.S.; Supervision, E.E.L. and P.S.L.; Project administration, S.C. and H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported in part by the four phases of the Brain Korea 21 Program in 2025.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
O-PONVOpioid-associated postoperative nausea and vomiting
OINVOpioid-induced nausea and vomiting
PONVPostoperative nausea and vomiting
RCTRandomized controlled trial
PRISMAPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PICOPopulation, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome
RISSResearch Information Sharing Service
PACUPost-Anesthesia Care Unit
NMANetwork meta-analysis
STATA/SEStatistical software for data science/special edition
OROdds ratio
CIConfidence interval

References

  1. Capri, C.A.; Neto, A.G.G.; Gusmao, R.A.; Silva, T.A.M.; Gomez, M.V.; Castro-Junior, C.J. Intrathecal morphine versus ketamine in postoperative pain after hysterectomy: Double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. J. Perianesth. Nurs. 2020, 35, 580–585.e2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gorina, Y.; Elgaddal, N.; Weeks, J.D. Hysterectomy Among Women Age 18 and Older: United States, 2021; NCHS Data Brief, No. 494; National Center for Health Statistics: Hyattsville, MD, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Hysterectomy. Available online: https://www.acog.org/womens-health/faqs/hysterectomy (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  4. Papadopoulos, M.S.; Tolikas, A.C.; Miliaras, D.E. Hysterectomy–current methods and alternatives for benign indications. Obstet. Gynecol. Int. 2010, 2010, 356740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lenfant, L.; Canlorbe, G.; Belghiti, J.; Kreaden, U.S.; Hebert, A.E.; Nikpayam, M. Robotic-assisted benign hysterectomy compared with laparoscopic, vaginal, and open surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Robot. Surg. 2023, 17, 2647–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wright, J.D.; Ananth, C.V.; Lewin, S.N.; Burke, W.M.; Lu, Y.S.; Neugut, A.I. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013, 309, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brandsborg, B.; Nikolajsen, L. Chronic pain after hysterectomy. Curr. Opin. Anaesthesiol. 2018, 31, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lirk, P.; Thiry, J.; Bonnet, M.P.; Joshi, G.P.; Bonnet, F.; Group, P.W. Pain management after laparoscopic hysterectomy: Systematic review of literature and PROSPECT recommendations. Reg. Anesth. Pain Med. 2019, 44, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Walsh, C.A.; Walsh, S.R.; Tang, T.Y.; Slack, M. Total abdominal hysterectomy versus total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign disease: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2009, 144, 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bijen, C.B.; Vermeulen, K.M.; Mourits, M.J.; de Bock, G.H. Costs and effects of abdominal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy: Systematic review of controlled trials. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e7340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Nelson, G.; Bakkum-Gamez, J.; Kalogera, E.; Glaser, G.; Altman, A.; Meyer, L.A. Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations–2019 update. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2019, 29, 651–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cozowicz, C.; Gerner, H.D.; Zhong, H.; Illescas, A.; Reisinger, L.; Poeran, J. Multimodal analgesia and outcomes in hysterectomy surgery–a population-based analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 5431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dinges, H.C.; Otto, S.; Stay, D.K.; Baumlein, S.; Waldmann, S.; Kranke, P. Side effect rates of opioids in equianalgesic doses via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Anesth. Analg. 2019, 129, 1153–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Smith, H.S.; Smith, J.M.; Seidner, P. Opioid-induced nausea and vomiting. Ann. Palliat. Med. 2012, 1, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kenny, G.N. Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 1994, 49, 6–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hutton, B.; Salanti, G.; Caldwell, D.M.; Chaimani, A.; Schmid, C.H.; Cameron, C. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: Checklist and explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 162, 777–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savovic, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schwarzer, G. Netmeta: Network Meta-Analysis Using Frequentist Methods (Updated 10 April 2025). Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/netmeta/index.html (accessed on 11 August 2025).
  19. Shim, S.; Yoon, B.H.; Shin, I.S.; Bae, J.M. Network meta-analysis: Application and practice using Stata. Epidemiol. Health 2017, 39, e2017047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jung, H.S.; Joo, J.D.; Jeon, Y.S.; Lee, J.A.; Kim, D.W.; In, J.H. Comparison of an intraoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine or remifentanil on perioperative haemodynamics, hypnosis and sedation, and postoperative pain control. J. Int. Med. Res. 2011, 39, 1890–1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, J.J.; Ha, M.H.; Jung, S.H.; Song, N.W. The efficiency of IV PCA with remifentanil and ketorolac after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2011, 61, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Park, J.H.; Lee, C.; Shin, Y.; An, J.H.; Ban, J.S.; Lee, J.H. Comparison of oxycodone and fentanyl for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2015, 68, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, N.S.; Kang, K.S.; Yoo, S.H.; Chung, J.H.; Chung, J.W.; Seo, Y. A comparison of oxycodone and fentanyl in intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2015, 68, 261–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Choi, J.W.; Joo, J.D.; Kim, D.W.; In, J.H.; Kwon, S.Y.; Seo, K. Comparison of an intraoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, and remifentanil on perioperative hemodynamics, sedation quality, and postoperative pain control. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2016, 31, 1485–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Moon, J.Y.; Choi, S.S.; Lee, S.Y.; Lee, M.K.; Kim, J.E.; Lee, J.E. The effect of nefopam on postoperative fentanyl consumption: A randomized, double-blind study. Korean J. Pain 2016, 29, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yoon, J.U.; Byeon, G.J.; Cheon, J.H.; Choi, Y.M.; Ri, H.S.; Baik, S.W. Post-operative intravenous patient-controlled analgesic efficacy of morphine with ketorolac versus nefopam after laparoscopic gynecologic surgery: A randomized non-inferiority trial. Korean J. Anesthesiol. 2016, 69, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, N.S.; Lee, J.S.; Park, S.Y.; Ryu, A.; Chun, H.R.; Chung, H.S. Oxycodone versus fentanyl for intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Medicine 2017, 96, e6286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nam, S.; Yoo, S.; Park, S.K.; Kim, J.T. Additive effect of a single intravenous dose of acetaminophen administered at the end of laparoscopic hysterectomy on postoperative pain control with nefopam and fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2025, 25, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ao, L.; Shi, J.; Gan, J.; Yu, W.; Du, H. Effects of dexmedetomidine and ketorolac applied for patient-controlled analgesia on the balance of Th1/Th2 and level of VEGF in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery for cervical cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Oncol Lett. 2024, 28, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Du, J.; Li, J.W.; Jin, J.; Shi, C.X.; Ma, J.H. Intraoperative and postoperative infusion of dexmedetomidine combined with intravenous butorphanol patient-controlled analgesia following total hysterectomy under laparoscopy. Exp. Ther. Med. 2018, 16, 4063–4069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, M.; Liu, S.; Gao, J.; Han, C.; Yang, C.; Liu, C. The effects of fentanyl, oxycodone, and butorphanol on gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2022, 22, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Liu, J.; Chen, S.; Chen, J.; Liu, H.; Li, W.; Chi, H. Effects of perioperative oxycodone as the sole opioid on immunity within a multimodal analgesia framework in patients undergoing cervical cancer surgery: A randomised controlled trial. Indian J. Anaesth. 2025, 69, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Comelon, M.; Raeder, J.; Drægni, T.; Lieng, M.; Lenz, H. Tapentadol versus oxycodone analgesia and side effects after laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Anaesthesiol. 2021, 38, 995–1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Comelon, M.; Wisloeff-Aase, K.; Raeder, J.; Drægni, T.; Undersrud, H.; Qvigstad, E. A comparison of oxycodone prolonged-release vs. oxycodone plus naloxone prolonged-release after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2013, 57, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iorno, V.; Landi, L.; Marchesi, T.; Porro, G.A.; Egan, C.G.; Calderini, E. Long-term effect of oxycodone/naloxone on the management of postoperative pain after hysterectomy: A randomized prospective study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2020, 86, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Jose, D.E.; Ganapathi, P.; Anish Sharma, N.G.; Shankaranarayana, P.; Aiyappa, D.S.; Nazim, M. Postoperative pain relief with epidural buprenorphine versus epidural butorphanol in laparoscopic hysterectomies: A comparative study. Anesth. Essays Res. 2016, 10, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Park, J.; Park, E.Y.; Han, S.S.; Park, H.M.; Lee, M.; Lee, S.A. Randomized controlled study comparing the analgesic effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia and patient-controlled epidural analgesia after open major surgery for pancreatobiliary cancer. HPB 2022, 24, 1238–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Apfel, C.C.; Laara, E.; Koivuranta, M.; Greim, C.A.; Roewer, N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: Conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology 1999, 91, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Chen, Y.; Chen, H.; Yuan, C. Comparative efficacy of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in labor pain management: A network meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0303174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Ladha, K.S.; Neuman, M.D.; Broms, G.; Bethell, J.; Bateman, B.T.; Wijeysundera, D.N. Opioid prescribing after surgery in the United States, Canada, and Sweden. JAMA Netw. Open 2019, 2, e1910734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Horn, C.C.; Wallisch, W.J.; Homanics, G.E.; Williams, J.P. Pathophysiological and neurochemical mechanisms of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014, 722, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jayawardana, S.; Forman, R.; Johnston-Webber, C.; Campbell, A.; Berterame, S.; de Joncheere, C. Global consumption of prescription opioid analgesics between 2009–2019: A country-level observational study. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 42, 101198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Medicina 61 01728 g001
Figure 1. Study flow of study screening and eligibility. * RISS: Research Information Sharing Service database operated by the Korea Education & Research Information Service. ** Excluded during title/abstract screening: not randomized controlled trial, non-human study, non-English, non-drug comparison study (e.g., diet, exercise).
Figure 1. Study flow of study screening and eligibility. * RISS: Research Information Sharing Service database operated by the Korea Education & Research Information Service. ** Excluded during title/abstract screening: not randomized controlled trial, non-human study, non-English, non-drug comparison study (e.g., diet, exercise).
Medicina 61 01728 g001
Medicina 61 01728 g002
Figure 2. Summary of risk of bias assessment [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].
Figure 2. Summary of risk of bias assessment [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36].
Medicina 61 01728 g002
Medicina 61 01728 g003
Figure 3. Network meta-analysis of five studies including opioid monotherapies (A). Network geometry; (B). Forest plot comparing the risk of nausea or vomiting; (C). P-score ranking.
Figure 3. Network meta-analysis of five studies including opioid monotherapies (A). Network geometry; (B). Forest plot comparing the risk of nausea or vomiting; (C). P-score ranking.
Medicina 61 01728 g003
Medicina 61 01728 g004
Figure 4. Network meta-analysis of four studies including combination regimens with ketorolac (A). Network geometry; (B). Forest plot comparing the risk of nausea or vomiting; (C). P-score Ranking.
Figure 4. Network meta-analysis of four studies including combination regimens with ketorolac (A). Network geometry; (B). Forest plot comparing the risk of nausea or vomiting; (C). P-score Ranking.
Medicina 61 01728 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of included studies.
StudyCountryArmsNTreatmentOutcome
Ao, L.,
2024 [29]		ChinaDK34Dexmedetomidine 2 μg/kg and ketorolac 3 mg/kg with NS
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: PONV 2/34
SUF32Sufentanil 1.5 μg/kg with NS
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: PONV 8/32
Choi, J.W., 2016 [24]Republic of KoreaFK30Fentanyl: LD 1.0 μg/kg, continuous infusion 0.4 μg/kg/h
Ketorolac: IV single dose 30 mg		30 min: N 3 (10%), V 3 (10%)
RK30Remifentanil: LD 1.0 μg/kg, continuous infusion 0.08 μg/kg/h
Ketorolac: IV single dose 30 mg		30 min: N 3 (10%), V 2 (6.7%)
DK30Dexmedetomidine: LD 1 μg/kg, continuous infusion 0.5 μg/kg/h
Ketorolac: IV single dose 30 mg		30 min: N 0 (0%), V 0 (0%)
Comelon, M., 2013 [34]NorwayON40Oxycodone/naloxone PR 10 mg/5 mg every 12 h for a total of 3 days0–4 h: N 7%, V 0%
4–24 h: N 12%, V 3%
O45Oxycodone PR 10 mg every 12 h for a total of 3 days0–4 h: N 7%, V 0%
4–24 h: N 13%, V 3%
Comelon, M., 2021 [33]NorwayT37Oral extended-release tapentadol 50 mg1 h: N 16.2%, V 2.7%
2 h: N 10.8%, V 0%
3 h: N 8.1%, V 0%
24 h: N 21.6%, V 18.9%
O36Oral extended-release oxycodone 10 mg1 h: N 8.3%, V 0%
2 h: N 8.3%, V 5.6%
3 h: N 19.4%, V 5.6%
24 h: N 44.4%, V 27.8%
Du, J.,
2018 [30]		ChinaCON40Butorphanol 10 mg
PCIA: 0.5 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		24 h: N 12 (30.0%), V 7 (17.1%)
DEX41Butorphanol 10 mg, dexmedetomidine 300 μg
PCIA: 0.5 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		24 h: N 7 (17.1%), V 2 (4.9%)
Guo, M.,
2022 [31]		ChinaF39Fentanyl 8.3 μg/kg
IV PCA: 3 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: N 4 (10.3%), V 0 (0%)
O36Oxycodone 0.5 mg/kg
IV PCA: 3 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: N 8 (21.6%), V 2 (5.4%)
B37Butorphanol 0.16 mg/kg
IV PCA: 3 mL bolus, 2 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: N 3 (8.3%), V 0 (0%)
Iorno, V.,
2020 [35]		ItalyOXN42PR oxycodone/naloxone (10 mg/5 mg), every 12 h up to 48 h postoperativelyDay0: N 7, V 2
Day1: N 3, V 0
Day2: N 1, V 0
Day3: N 1, V 0 *
M41Morphine 0.2~0.4 mg/kg/day continuous infusion 48 h postoperatively
Ketorolac 30 mg IV three times a day		Day0: N 10, V 4
Day1: N 7, V 2
Day2: N 3, V 0
Day3: N 0, V 0 *
Jose, D.E., 2016 [36]IndiaA30Buprenorphine 0.3 mg with 10 mL NS injected via epidural catheter12 h: NV 4 (13%)
B30Butorphanol 1 mg with 10 mL NS injected via epidural catheter12 h: NV 3 (10%)
Jung, H.S., 2011 [20]Republic of KoreaD25Dexmedetomidine: LD 1 μg/kg, continuous infusion 0.2~0.7 μg/kg/h30 min: N 3 (13%), V 2 (8%)
R25Remifentanil: LD 0.8~1.2 μg/kg, continuous infusion 0.05~0.1 μg/kg/h30 min: N 0 (0%), V 0 (0%)
Kim, J.J.,
2011 [21]		Republic of KoreaR20Remifentanil IV PCA: LD 1 μg/kg, 0.375 μg/kg bolus, 0.025 μg/kg/min basalScore 0 (none): 8 (40%)
Score 1 (mild): 7 (35.0%)
Score 2 (moderate): 4 (20.0%)
Score 3 (severe): 0 (0%)
Score 4 (vomiting): 1 (5%)
RK119Remifentanil IV PCA: LD 0.6 μg/kg, 0.225 μg/kg bolus, 0.015 μg/kg/min basal
Ketorolac: LD 30 mg, 0.01 μg/kg bolus, 0.04 μg/kg/h basal, 15 min lockout		Score 0 (none): 12 (63.2%)
Score 1 (mild): 4 (21.1%)
Score 2 (moderate): 2 (10.5%)
Score 3 (severe): 0 (0%)
Score 4 (vomiting): 1 (5.3%)
RK220Remifentanil: LD 0.3 μg/kg, 0.1125 μg/kg bolus, 0.0075 μg/kg/min basal
Ketorolac: LD 30 mg, 0.01 μg/kg bolus, 0.04 μg/kg/h basal, 15 min lockout		Score 0 (none): 8 (40.0%)
Score 1 (mild): 4(20.0%)
Score 2 (moderate): 5 (25.0%)
Score 3 (severe): 3 (15.0%)
Score 4 (vomiting): 0 (0%)
F20Fentanyl: LD 1 μg/kg, 0.075 μg/kg bolus, 0.3 μg/kg/h basal, 15 min lockout
Ketorolac: LD 30 mg, 0.01 μg/kg bolus, 0.04 μg/kg/h basal, 15 min lockout		Score 0 (none): 10 (50.0%)
Score 1 (mild): 4 (20.0%)
Score 2 (moderate): 4 (20.0%)
Score 3 (severe): 1 (5.0%)
Score 4 (vomiting): 1 (5.0%)
Kim. N.S., 2015 [23]Republic of KoreaF30Fentanyl 700 μg (LD 100 μg)
Ketorolac 150 mg (LD S30 mg)
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 14 μg/h basal, 15 min lockout		0.5 h: N 1 (3.3%), V 0 (0%)
2 h: N 3 (10%), V 1 (3.3%)
4 h: N 6 (20%), V 1 (3.3%)
8 h: N 6 (20%), V 0 (0%)
24 h: N 4 (13.3%), V 2 (6.7%)
48 h: N 4 (13.3%), V 1 (3.3%)
O30Oxycodone 70 mg (LD 10 mg)
Ketorolac 150 mg (LD 30 mg)
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 1.4 mg/h basal, 15 min lockout		0.5 h: N 1 (3.3%), V 0 (0%)
2 h: N 4 (13.3%), V 0 (0%)
4 h: N 14 (46.7%), V 1 (3.3%)
8 h: N 13 (43.3%), V 2 (6.7%)
24 h: N 12 (40.0%), V 4 (13.3%)
48 h: N 12 (40.0%), V 3 (10.0%)
Kim, N.S., 2017 [27]Republic of KoreaF63Fentanyl 700 μg (LD 100 μg)
Ketorolac 150 mg (LD 30 mg)
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 14 μg/h basal, 15 min lockout		0.5 h: N 2 (3.2%, V 0 (0%)
4 h: N 8 (12.7%), V 3 (4.8%)
8 h: N 9 (14.3%), V 1 (1.6%)
24 h: N 9 (14.3%), V 5 (7.9%)
48 h: N 2 (3.2%), V 3 (4.8%)
O64Oxycodone 52.5 mg (LD 7.5 mg)
Ketorolac 150 mg (LD 30 mg)
IV PCA: 0.5 mL bolus, 1050 μg/h basal, 15 min lockout		0.5 h: N 2 (3.1%), V 0 (0%)
4 h: N 21 (32.8%), V 2 (3.1%)
8 h: N 21 (32.8%), V 9 (14.1%)
24 h: N 31 (48.4%), V 8 (12.5%)
48 h: N 18 (28.1%), V 2 (3.1%)
Liu, J.,
2025 [32]		ChinaO28Oxycodone 0.5 mg/mL
IV PCA: 4 mL bolus, 1 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: N 6/28 (21.4%), V 3/28 (10.7%)
C28Sufentanil 0.5 μg/mL
IV PCA: 4 mL bolus, 1 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		48 h: N 8/28 (28.6%), V 7/28 (25.0%)
Moon, J.Y., 2016 [25]Republic of KoreaA27Fentanyl 1000 μg (LD 20 μg)
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 5 min lockout, 10 mL/h max, total daily max 60 mL (no basal infusion)		48 h: NV 17 (59.3%)
B28Fentanyl 500 μg (LD 10 μg)
Nefopam 200 mg (LD 4 mg)
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 5 min lockout, 10 mL/h max, total daily max 60 mL (no basal infusion)		48 h: NV 18 (64.3%)
C26Fentanyl 500 μg (LD 10 μg)
Nefopam 400 mg (LD 8 mg)
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 5 min lockout, 10 mL/h max, total daily max 60 mL (no basal infusion)		48 h: NV 18 (69.2%)
Nam, S., 2025 [28]Republic of KoreaC42Fentanyl 500 μg + nefopam 80 mg IV PCA
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 0.5 mL/h basal, 10 min lockout		24 h: N 15 (35.7%), V 1 (2.4%)
T41Acetaminophen IV 1 g
Fentanyl 500 μg + nefopam 80 mg IV PCA
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 0.5 mL/h basal, 10 min lockout		24 h: N 15 (26.6%), V 4 (9.8%)
Park, J.H., 2015 [22]Republic of KoreaO37Oxycodone IV PCA: 0.9 mg bolus, 0.9 mg/h basal, 15 min lockout48 h: N 11, V 3
F32Fentanyl IV PCA: 15 μg bolus, 15 μg/h basal, 15 min lockout48 h: N 4, V 1
Yoon, J.U., 2016 [26]Republic of KoreaA30Morphine 60 mg + ketorolac 180 mg
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 1 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		PACU: N 7 (23.3%), V 0 (0%)
12 h: N 14 (46.7%), V 3 (10.0%)
24 h: N 12 (40.0%), V 2 (6.7%)
48 h: N 9 (30.0%), V 0 (0%)
B30Nefopam 200 mg
IV PCA: 1 mL bolus, 1 mL/h basal, 15 min lockout		PACU: N 6 (20.0%), V 0 (0%)
12 h: N 3 (10.0%), V 1 (3.3%)
24 h: N 3 (10.0%), V 0 (0%)
48 h: N 3 (10.0%), V 0 (0%)
IV: intravenous; LD: loading dose; N: nausea; NS: normal saline; PONV: postoperative nausea and vomiting; PCA: patient-controlled analgesia; PCIA: patient-controlled intravenous analgesia; PR: per rectum; V: vomiting. * Graphic source data converted to numerical value.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cho, S.; Bang, H.; Shin, S.; Kim, H.; Park, S.; Lee, P.S.; Lee, E.E. Opioid-Associated Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis. Medicina 2025, 61, 1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101728

AMA Style

Cho S, Bang H, Shin S, Kim H, Park S, Lee PS, Lee EE. Opioid-Associated Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis. Medicina. 2025; 61(10):1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101728

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cho, Sueyoung, Heesoo Bang, Sangyoon Shin, Hyunjoo Kim, Seohyeon Park, Paul S. Lee, and Eunkyung Euni Lee. 2025. "Opioid-Associated Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis" Medicina 61, no. 10: 1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101728

APA Style

Cho, S., Bang, H., Shin, S., Kim, H., Park, S., Lee, P. S., & Lee, E. E. (2025). Opioid-Associated Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Women Undergoing Laparoscopic Hysterectomy: A Network Meta-Analysis. Medicina, 61(10), 1728. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61101728

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop