Skip Navigation

British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006 96(5):665-666; doi:10.1093/bja/ael058
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cashman, J. N.
Right arrow Articles by Dolin, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cashman, J. N.
Right arrow Articles by Dolin, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Standards of care for PONV

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Editor—I congratulate Drs Dolin and Cashman on the completion of the comprehensive review of the acute postoperative pain management.1 I would like to express a few comments on their findings and interpretations. In comparison with i.m, they found nausea and pruritus to be more frequent in patients receiving PCA, and both techniques have similar effects on sedation and vomiting. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the overall tolerability of PCA is inferior to i.m. technique. A simple explanation of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

J. N. Cashman* and S. J. Dolin

London and Chichester, UK

*E-mail: Jeremy.cashman@stgeorges.nhs.uk


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?