Designing Optimal Prevention and Management of Postoperative Nausea and Emesis for Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy
Phase: PHASE4
Conditions: Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting, Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy
Sponsor: Stony Brook University

TITLE: DESIGNING OPTIMAL PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND 
EMESIS FOR PATIENTS UNDERGOING LAPAROSCOPIC SLEEVE GASTRECTOMY. 
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Konstantinos Spaniolas, MD 
Co-investigator: Dr. Pryor Aurora, Dr. Daryn Moller
I. SUMMARY 
Bariatric surgery remains the most effective therapy for obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Postoperative nausea and
vomiting (PONV) are commonly reported following bariatric surgery; our preliminary results suggest that 90.8% of 
patients report PONV during their index hospital stay, and 30.4% of readmitted patients report PONV as the reason for re-
hospitalization. Importantly, we have previously found that 49% of patients are unable to be discharged on time due to 
oral intake intolerance attributed to PONV. Multiple small studies have attempted to introduce single-level intervention to 
decrease PONV with limited success in this patient population. The proposed study focuses on the most common bariatric 
procedure performed, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and aims to assess the effect of a PONV-specific 
intervention using a multimodal contemporary approach. We hypothesize that the PONV-intervention group will 
experience a more than 50% relative risk reduction of PONV-related prolonged hospital stay and significantly improve 
patient-reported quality of recovery from surgery and quality of life. To test this hypothesis, subjects undergoing LSG will 
be prospectively randomized to two groups: control (physician driven prophylaxis) vs PONV-intervention group (two 
anti-emetic agents prior to surgery, total intravenous anesthesia, two additional anti-emetic agents during surgery, and 
sugammadex as reversal agent). The primary end-point will be PONV-related prolonged hospital length of stay, using 
postoperative day 1 as the target for hospital discharge as per clinical pathway. Serial assessments of PONV, quality of 
life and quality of recovery, will allow us to identify an effect of the PONV-intervention on PONV incidence and severity. 
Importantly, we will evaluate for an impact in patient-reported measures of quality of life. Our proposal is extremely 
innovative, because it addresses a high impact topic, evaluates the effect of PONV-intervention in all phases of recovery, 
and includes instruments to measure self-reported patient experience with surgery. 
II. SPECIFIC AIMS
PONV is associated with delayed hospital discharge and readmissions following LSG. The impact of PONV on patient 
experience, self-reported outcomes, and overall recovery is unknown for this patient population. The proposed study aims 
to assess the effect of a PONV-specific intervention using a multimodal contemporary approach in subjects undergoing 
LSG. The PONV intervention will include specific steps using total intravenous anesthesia and staged anti-emetic 
medications, in the pre-, intra- and post-operative phase of care. We hypothesize that a comprehensive multi-level PONV 
intervention will decrease the incidence and severity of PONV, increase successful patient hospital discharge on 
postoperative day (POD) 1, facilitate late phase postoperative recovery and positive patient experience. 
Specific Aim 1: Evaluate the impact of a PONV-specific intervention on PONV-related prolonged length of 
hospital stay following LSG surgery. Subjects will be serially assessed for the presence and scale of nausea and emesis 
during their early, intermediate and late phases of recovery, measured with a PONV-specific survey. Time from 
completion of the index procedure until patient hospital discharge will be assessed; subjects who remain in the hospital 
past POD 1 due to PONV will be considered as having a prolonged length of stay, which is the primary endpoint for this 
aim. We will also assess the effect of a PONV-specific intervention on post-discharge PONV-related resource utilization 
following LSG. Patients will be followed to capture hospital readmissions, emergency department visits and outpatient 
intravenous hydration for PONV. We hypothesize that the PONV-intervention group will experience a higher rate of 
successful POD 1 discharge, and a decrease in incidence and severity of both nausea and emesis. 
Specific Aim 2: Assess the effect of a PONV-specific intervention on patient reported outcomes (PRO). Patient-
reported outcome measures will be collected to evaluate recovery from surgery and health-related quality of life at 2- and 
4-weeks following LSG. We hypothesize that a PONV-specific intervention will allow patients to have improved self-
assessed recovery and quality of life during the first 30-days following surgery. 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

III. SIGNIFICANCE 
Bariatric surgery is the most effective method to treat obesity and associated diseases. Currently, the LSG is the most 
common bariatric procedure performed (1). In this patient population, however, PONV occurs commonly. Published 
studies suggest a 59-87% incidence of PONV during the hospital stay following LSG (2, 3). 
The burden of PONV in the bariatric population, and specifically after LSG, is particularly high. We have previously 
demonstrated that PONV is the most common cause for hospital readmission following LSG, with 30.4% of readmitted
LSG patients reporting PONV and oral intake intolerance as their primary reason for readmission (4). This is markedly 
different in gastric bypass patients, where only 18% of readmitted patients reported PONV as their primary complaint. 
Additionally, our preliminary data suggest that half of LSG patients experience a delay in pathway-expected hospital 
discharge due to PONV (see Preliminary Data section under Approach). With the drive to minimize hospital length of 
stay, PONV control is paramount to achieve safe early hospital discharge. 
The impact on PONV on PRO is unclear. One third of patients who received double PONV prophylaxis and routine anti-
emetics for the first two days at home following ambulatory laparoscopic surgery reported that nausea had a negative 
effect on their quality of life, during self-assessment on POD 5 (5). Following ambulatory surgery, the incidence of PONV 
increases over time; 16.1% of patients experience PONV in early recovery, and 31.2% of patients report PONV on POD 
5, during late recovery at home (6). These rates are almost double for patients undergoing ambulatory laparoscopic surgery, 
suggesting that PROs after discharge are of high value for the assessment of a PONV-related effect. Importantly, PONV 
at home significantly impairs the ability to perform activities of daily living, which is an important goal of recovery for 
patients (7). Since PONV is reported commonly in LSG patients, we anticipate that improvement in PONV will affect 
PROs and overall experience during the intermediate (from post-anesthesia care unit until hospital discharge) and late 
(from hospital discharge to return to usual activity) phases of recovery. 
Although the benefit of a multimodal approach to PONV prevention has been well established (8), evidence in the 
bariatric, and specifically the LSG population is not clear. A study evaluating a triple-agent protocol in 96 LSG patients, 
using ondansetron, dexamethasone and haloperidol, demonstrated improvement in PONV incidence, but no effect on 
hospital length of stay (3). The lack of effect on hospital discharge may be related to the use of short half-life preventive 
agents, the lack of aggressive postoperative anti-PONV management or the implementation of a post-care pathway with 
less emphasis in early hospital discharge. This would possibly underline the value of longer lasting antiemetic agents, as 
prevention. The only study to date evaluating the use of aprepitant, an agent with half-life exceeding 12 hours, in bariatric 
surgery demonstrated significant decrease in the rate of emesis compared to controls (3.1% vs 15%, p=0.021), but is 
limited by the non-inclusion of LSG patients, and the lack of triple prophylaxis as control (9). Furthermore, the use of 
sugammadex has emerged as a modality to decrease pain and PONV. A randomized study of 88 bariatric surgery patients 
assigned to this agent vs neostigmine demonstrated a significant decrease in the early incidence of PONV (6.8% vs 
18.2%, p<0.05)(10). Studies evaluating the longer-term effect of this reversal approach to PONV in this patient population 
are not available.  
Recently published recommendations from European societies for the enhanced recovery of bariatric surgery include 
multimodal PONV prevention, but the evidence, as also noted in the article, is lacking (11). Despite the significant impact 
of PONV in this patient population, there is no consensus on the optimal approach in PONV prevention. Given the 
proportion of LSG procedures performed, the effect of PONV in this patient population and the paucity of high quality 
data, the proposed study will allow us to advance science in bariatric surgery, change the standard of care and improve 
patient experience. A standardized anti-PONV intervention with proven efficacy could minimize length of stay and 
readmissions after LSG, minimizing costs and improving patient experience. 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

IV. INNOVATION  
Multiple studies suggest that PONV is a significant postoperative problem for bariatric surgery patients (4). Despite this, 
no studies have addressed PONV in this patient population in a systematic fashion, or using a multilevel approach. 
Furthermore, PONV is this patient population has likely different pathophysiology compared to similar symptoms in 
colectomy and other gastrointestinal patients. Development of a program specific to bariatric surgery for the prevention 
and management of PONV using interventions before, during and following surgery is a novel approach to this clinical
problem. Furthermore, the current proposal is innovative in a three-fold way: 
a. Evaluation of PONV during the late phase of recovery from surgery for patients undergoing LSG hasn’t been 
previously reported. The proposed study will try to fill this knowledge gap, which is especially important given that 
PONV is the most common cause for hospital readmission in this group. 
b. Although PONV has a significant impact on patient experience during recovery from surgery, this hasn’t been 
explored, especially in patients undergoing LSG, despite the high incidence of PONV in this setting. Using standardized 
questionnaires, patients following LSG will be able to provide PROs on quality of life and quality of recovery. The use of 
PROs, including instruments of quality of life assessment, for the evaluation of PONV is novel, and will afford us the 
ability to assess if a PONV-specific intervention can have a patient-centered impact. 
V. APPROACH 
Overall design: We will conduct a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of a multi-level PONV-specific 
intervention (pre-, intra- and post-operative) for patients undergoing LSG. Patients will be followed for 30 days to assess 
the benefit of this intervention on all phases of postoperative recovery (early, intermediate and late). 
Pre-op
Intra-op
Post -op
Patients Scheduled for Sleeve 
Gastrectomy
Randomization 1:1
Control
None
Dexamethasone 8mg
Ondansetron 4mg
PONV 
Intervention
Apprepitant 80mg
Scopolamine patch
TIVA
Dexamethasone 8mg
Ondansetron 4mg
Sugammadex reversal
Ondansentron 4mg q6
Metoclopramide 10mg q6
Compazine 10mg oral 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

Human Subjects: Adult patients (18 years and older) undergoing LSG will be assessed for eligibility to participate in this 
study. Subjects will be recruited at the Stony Brook University Bariatric and Metabolic Weight Loss Center by study 
personnel. Patients with documented allergy to the study medications, history of chronic nausea and emesis requiring 
medication, poorly controlled diabetes (HgA1c>9 mg/dl), or history of previous bariatric or gastro-esophageal surgery 
will be excluded from this study. 
Study Groups: Eligible subjects for this study will be randomized to two groups using an online random number 
generator. Randomization will occur during the last outpatient visit prior to undergoing LSG. Subjects will be assigned to 
two groups: control vs PONV-intervention (Figure). 
Intervention: A) Pre-operatively: The experimental group will undergo treatment with aprepitant 80 mg orally and 
scopolamine transdermal patch one hour prior to scheduled surgery (figure 1). 
B) Intra-operatively: Anesthetic parameters: Induction of anesthesia will be performed with propofol (1-2.5 mg/Kg IV) 
and succinylcholine (1-1.5 mg/Kg IV) or rocuronium (0.5-1 mg/Kg IV) after pre-oxygenation as standard practice for 
both groups. In the PONV-intervention group, total 
intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) will be maintained with 
IV infusions of propofol, and dexmetomidate infusion 
or intermittent bolus dosing of fentanyl after induction. In the control group, inhalation anaesthetics (sevoflurane or 
desflurane) and intermittent opioid boluses will be used for maintenance of anesthesia, as standard practice in our 
institution and across the country. Muscle relaxation will be maintained with boluses of rocuronium (10-20 mg) or 
vecuronium (1-2 mg) to provide optimal surgical conditions for both groups. Sugammadex (2-4 mg/Kg IV) will be used 
for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in both groups. Anti-emetic regimen: In the PONV-intervention group, a single 
dose of dexamethasone 8 mg IV will be administered after induction, and a single dose of ondansetron 4 mg IV will be 
administered approximately 20 minutes prior to the end of operation. PONV prevention measures in the control group will 
be limited to dexamethasone 8 mg and ondansetron 4 mg. This contrasts with the PONV-intervention group, which will 
undergo multimodal therapy (8, 12). At any point during the study, clinical mandates by either surgeon or anesthesiologist 
can allow for subject cross-over, or subject withdrawal from the study. 
C) Post-operatively: PONV control will include scheduled ondansetron and metoclopramide every 6 hours, using 
Compazine as a rescue medication (Figure 1). This step will be common for both groups. 
Surgery will be performed in a standardized way: antral division will commence at 4 cm from the pylorus, and the gastric 
sleeve will be calibrated over a 38 Fr bougie (or double channel endoscope, equivalent to 37.6 Fr). All patients will be in 
the current standardized LSG pathway that includes: avoidance of routine nasogastric decompression or surgical drainage, 
avoidance of routine urinary catheter placement, early ambulation the same day, early initiation of oral intake as soon as 
patient is awake, and no routine contrast radiologic studies. Per pathway design, all patients who undergo non-revisional 
LSG are planned for hospital discharge on POD 1. Pain control consists of scheduled acetaminophen and as needed IV 
opioids for the day of surgery, followed by as needed oral opiods starting on early morning POD 1. 
Specific Aim 1: Evaluate the impact of a PONV-specific intervention on PONV-related prolonged length of 
hospital stay following SG surgery. 
Hypothesis: We hypothesize that the PONV-intervention group will experience a more than 50% relative risk reduction 
of PONV-related prolonged hospital stay. We hypothesize that a PONV-specific intervention will lead to decrease in 
incidence and severity of PONV. 
Figure 1: Study protocol for PONV prevention
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

Rationale: All patients undergoing LSG are high-risk for PONV (13). By implementing a series of interventions that 
individually have been proven efficacious in decreasing nausea or emesis, we anticipate a significant reduction in the 
incidence of PONV in the experimental group. The impact of nausea and emesis individually on the ability of LSG 
patients to tolerate oral intake and maintain hydration is unclear. Inability to tolerate oral intake and subsequent 
dehydration pronounce the effects of PONV, so we anticipate that an early intervention to prevent the incidence and 
severity of PONV will allow for early hospital discharge without an increased risk for hospital readmission. All items on
the PONV-intervention program have been suggested to decrease PONV in bariatric or other high-risk populations (2, 3, 9, 
10, 14).  
Preliminary data: We have previously completed a prospective cohort study of 65 patients undergoing isolated non-
revisional laparoscopic bariatric surgery (subjects undergoing concurrent procedures were excluded), and serially assessed 
for PONV using a 10-point Likert scale (presented at 2017 SAGES Annual Conference). Using a standardized 
postoperative PONV management algorithm, we identified that 59 of 65 (90.8%) of patients experienced PONV at some 
point during their hospitalization following LSG. The study was conducted in a clinical setting with routine radiographic 
imaging on POD 1 and pathway-targeted hospital discharge on POD 2. We identified that 20.7% of LSG patients 
experienced a prolonged hospital length of stay (past POD 2) and 6.9% were re-admitted within 30-days for PONV. In a 
more contemporary clinical practice without routine imaging and early oral intake initiation, the effect of PONV is more 
pronounced. In our current pathway with these elements of care, patients undergoing LSG are expected to meet criteria for 
hospital discharge on postoperative day 1. In the 2015-2016 academic year, we identified that 49% of SG patients were 
unable to be discharged to home on POD 1. 
Experimental design: This is a prospective randomized trial of subjects undergoing LSG for morbid obesity. Subjects 
will be randomized to two groups (control vs PONV-intervention) as described above. Assessments: Subjects will be 
assessed for the presence and severity of PONV at 1, 4, 12, 24 hours, and 3 weeks following the end of the surgical 
procedure (table 1). Nausea will be defined as an unsettled feeling in the stomach and urge to vomit. Vomiting will be 
defined as oral expulsion of gastric contents, and retching as expulsive attempts without any oral content. We will use a 
10-point verbal rating scale (VRS) for the assessment of nausea as used previously (3, 9). Vomiting and retching will be 
assessed in a binary way. The Rhodes Index of nausea and emesis, an 8-question survey (composite score range 0-32), 
will be used as an additional assessment instrument at the later time points (12 h and later) since it evaluates PONV over 
12-hour intervals (15). This index has been previously used for the assessment of PONV following LSG (16). At each time 
point, total opioids (converted to morphine equivalents) and rescue anti-emetics used will be noted. Visits to the 
emergency room and hospital re-admissions will be captured; these will be considered PONV-related if the patient 
presents with inability to tolerate oral intake secondary to PONV, and/or signs and symptoms of dehydration, who are not 
found to have other pathology during evaluation (i.e. readmission for a patient with nausea due to a systemic infection will 
not be considered PONV-related). Outcome measures: Primary outcome for this aim will be PONV-related delay in 
hospital discharge, defined as inability to be discharged from the hospital on POD 1 due to PONV. Secondary outcomes 
will be hospital length of stay (measured as hours from the end of the surgical procedure), incidence of PONV (incidence 
of nausea and emesis will also be assessed separately), severity of PONV (based on the VRS and Rhodes Index), PONV-
related resource utilization (individually measured presentation to the emergency room and hospital readmission for 
PONV). 
Interpretation, Potential Pitfalls and Alternative 
Strategies:  We anticipate a significant reduction 
in PONV incidence and PONV-related delayed 
hospital discharge in the PONV-intervention 
group. Although unlikely, it is possible that we will 
be unable to identify a difference in POD1 
discharge, as the time of performance of LSG may 
be a confounder and bias the results (i.e. patients 
undergoing SG earlier in the day may be more likely 
Time points
Specific Aim 1: PONV 
Specific Aim 2: PRO
Baseline
VRS, Rhodes Index
GIQLI, EQ-5D 
1 hr
VRS
4 hr 
VRS 
12 hr 
VRS, Rhodes Index
24 hr 
VRS, Rhodes Index
QoR-15, GIQLI
3 wk 
VRS, Rhodes Index
QoR-15, GIQLI, EQ-5D
Table 1: Patient study assessments for each time point.
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

to be discharged to home on POD1). In our current practice, LSG procedures are performed earlier in the operating room 
day, to facilitate earlier hospital discharge the following day. Despite this, we have identified a 49% failure rate for POD1 
discharge. In addition, our secondary measures, including incidence/severity of PONV and length of stay (measured in 
hours from the end of surgery) are not affected by operating room timing, and will allow for efficacy assessment of our 
PONV-intervention, independent of time of day of LSG completion. It is also possible that we identify no difference 
between the groups in terms of longer term PONV incidence. Our study will still provide valuable insight on the
epidemiology of PONV after hospital discharge following LSG, which is currently poorly characterized. By allowing us 
to assess the overall incidence of PONV at different timepoints, this study will afford us the opportunity to identify a time 
period of high incidence and further adjust our prevention efforts accordingly in future studies. 
Specific Aim 2: Assess the effect of a PONV-specific intervention on patient reported outcomes (PRO). 
Hypothesis: We hypothesize that a PONV-specific intervention will significantly improve patient-reported quality of 
recovery from surgery and quality of life. 
Rationale: PONV significantly affects the late phase of recovery (from hospital discharge to return to baseline), because 
it impairs the ability to perform activities of daily living, which patients value as an important goal of recovery (7). In a 
postoperative survey of 469 patients evaluated two weeks after abdominal surgery, visceral function (including PONV) 
correlated with physical and functional impairment during recovery.  Additionally, one third of patients following 
ambulatory laparoscopic surgery reported that nausea had a negative effect on their quality of life, during self-assessment 
on POD 5 (5). Since PONV is reported commonly in LSG patients, we anticipate that improvement in PONV will 
significantly improve quality of life and overall experience during the intermediate (from post-anesthesia care unit until 
hospital discharge) and late phases of recovery. Additionally, the ability to resume physical activity is an important 
outcome of patient recovery (17). This is particularly important after bariatric surgery, as an adjunct for weight loss, and 
recommended as part of clinical practice guidelines (18). It is plausible that improvements in PONV for SG patients would 
have a significant benefit in terms of progressive physical activity and resumption of activities of daily living.  If the 
PONV intervention is associated with improved patient experience and PROs, it could improve clinical decision making 
for patients considering LSG. 
Experimental design: Subjects randomized to control versus PONV-intervention from Specific Aim 1, will be assessed 
in terms of quality of recovery and quality of life at the intermediate and late phases. Assessments: PROs will be obtained 
at 24 hours, and 3 weeks following LSG surgery (table 1). The Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index (GIQLI) is a 
validated instrument for the assessment of quality of life following gastrointestinal surgery, previously used in bariatric 
surgery research (19-23). The QoR-15 is a validated reliable instrument to assess the quality of a patient’s postoperative 
recovery (24). This survey has been also used for quality of recovery assessment in the late phase, up to 30 days following 
gastrointestinal surgery (25, 26). The Part A of QoR-15 assesses overall patient experience, as well as physical and 
functional status without direct assessment of symptoms (e.g. nausea) which are evaluated in Part B. Broad coherent 
assessment of quality of life will be performed using the EQ-5D index. This is a validated standardized brief instrument 
that provides a simple descriptive profile in five domains (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain and anxiety) and a 
single index value for health status, designed for self-completion. The EQ-5D Crosswalk index calculator will be used to 
convert the descriptive profiling into a single index. EQ-5D has been extensively used for quality of life assessment in 
bariatric surgery (27-29). 
Outcome measures: Primary outcome from this aim will be difference in the GIQLI index at 2 weeks postoperatively. 
Secondary outcomes will be difference in GIQLI at 24 hours and 3 weeks, difference in QoR-15 at each time point, 
difference in QoR-15 Part A at each time point, difference in EQ-5D self-assessed visual score, difference in EQ-5D 
profiling (score in each category), and difference in EQ-5D index at 3 weeks. 
Interpretation, Potential Pitfalls and Alternative Strategies:  We anticipate a significantly higher GIQLI in the PONV-
intervention group. It is likely that an improvement in PONV will a priori lead to improvements in the quality of life 
indices selected, since these surveys include assessment of PONV. Although this could be considered bias, we believe that 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

improvement in these validated indices would remain a significant finding. However, to further assess for global 
improvements in quality of life, we will be separately analyzing Part A of the QoR-15 survey, which doesn’t capture 
severity and presence of PONV. Additionally, the EQ-5D instrument includes no direct measurement of PONV, and 
would allow us to control for bias. It is also possible that the PONV-intervention group experiences no significant 
improvement in quality of life. If we identify an improvement in PONV incidence and severity (specific aim 1) without a 
concomitant improvement in quality of life after recovery, this finding would suggest the limited impact of PONV on
quality of life early after LSG. Such finding would allow us to focus our subsequent PONV intervention methods in the 
intermediate phase of recovery. The EQ-5D instrument was used over the more widely used Short Form-36 due to the 
ease of use for patients (five vs 36 questions) and the non-inferiority for postoperative patients. 
Statistical analysis: For continuous variables, data distribution will be assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Two-sided t-
test (means, standard deviation) and Wilcoxon rank sum test (median, 25th-75th percentiles) will be used accordingly. 
Categorical variables will be compared using chi-square testing. VRS assessments for all time points combined will be 
compared using repeated measures ANOVA. 
Sample Size Considerations: The primary outcome of the study will be incidence of PONV-related delay of hospital 
discharge following LSG. Change in proportion will be assessed with chi-square testing. We expect a decrease in delay of 
POD1 discharge from 49% to 20% (3, 8). Based on the data above, with two-tailed a=0.05 and b=0.2, we would require 41 
subjects per group (total N=82) to detect a significant difference with the PONV-prevention. The Stony Brook Bariatric 
and Metabolic Weight Loss Center performs 100-150 LSG procedures annually, so we anticipate that the proposed study 
will be completed within 2 years. 
VI. TIMELINE 
Months
Milestones
  1-3   4-6   7-9
 9-12
13-15
16-18
19-21
22-24
IRB approval
X
Study staff training 
X
Subject recruitment 
X
X
X
X
X
X
Data analysis 
X
X
Manuscript preparation 
X
X
VII. INSTITUTIONAL APPROVALS  
Institutional approval will be obtained from the Stony Brook University Institutional Review Board. The review board 
meets regularly on a bi-monthly basis. 
VIII. REFERENCES 
1. Spaniolas K, Kasten KR, Brinkley J, Sippey ME, Mozer A, Chapman WH, Pories WJ. The Changing Bariatric Surgery 
Landscape in the USA. Obes Surg. 2015 Aug;25(8):1544-6. 
2. Ziemann-Gimmel P, Goldfarb AA, Koppman J, Marema RT. Opioid-free total intravenous anaesthesia reduces 
postoperative nausea and vomiting in bariatric surgery beyond triple prophylaxis. Br J Anaesth. 2014 May;112(5):906-11. 
3. Benevides ML, Oliveira SS, de Aguilar-Nascimento JE. The combination of haloperidol, dexamethasone, and 
ondansetron for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized 
double-blind trial. Obes Surg. 2013 Sep;23(9):1389-96. 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

4. Sippey M, Kasten KR, Chapman WH, Pories WJ, Spaniolas K. 30-day readmissions after sleeve gastrectomy versus 
Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2016 Jun;12(5):991-6. 
5. Pan PH, Lee SC, Harris LC. Antiemetic prophylaxis for postdischarge nausea and vomiting and impact on functional 
quality of living during recovery in patients with high emetic risks: a prospective, randomized, double-blind comparison 
of two prophylactic antiemetic regimens. Anesth Analg. 2008 Aug;107(2):429-38. 
6. Carroll NV, Miederhoff P, Cox FM, Hirsch JD. Postoperative nausea and vomiting after discharge from outpatient 
surgery centers. Anesth Analg. 1995 May;80(5):903-9. 
7. Urbach DR, Harnish JL, McIlroy JH, Streiner DL. A measure of quality of life after abdominal surgery. Qual Life Res. 
2006 Aug;15(6):1053-61.
8. Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M, Kerger H, Turan A, Vedder I, Zernak C, Danner K, Jokela R, Pocock SJ, Trenkler S, 
Kredel M, Biedler A, Sessler DI, Roewer N; IMPACT Investigators. A factorial trial of six interventions for the 
prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 10;350(24):2441-51. 
9. Sinha AC, Singh PM, Williams NW, Ochroch EA, Goudra BG. Aprepitant's prophylactic efficacy in decreasing 
postoperative nausea and vomiting in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2014 
Feb;24(2):225-31. 
10. Castro DS Jr, Leão P, Borges S, Gomes L, Pacheco M, Figueiredo P. Sugammadex reduces postoperative pain after 
laparoscopic bariatric surgery: a randomized trial. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014 Oct;24(5):420-3. 
11. Thorell A, MacCormick AD, Awad S, Reynolds N, Roulin D, Demartines N, Vignaud M, Alvarez A, Singh PM, Lobo 
DN. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society 
Recommendations. World J Surg. 2016 Sep;40(9):2065-83. 
12. Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Kovac A, Kranke P, Meyer TA, Watcha M, Chung F, Angus S, Apfel CC, Bergese 
SD, Candiotti KA, Chan MT, Davis PJ, Hooper VD, Lagoo-Deenadayalan S, Myles P, Nezat G, Philip BK, Tramèr MR; 
Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia.. Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. 
Anesth Analg. 2014 Jan;118(1):85-113. 
13. Apfel CC, Philip BK, Cakmakkaya OS, Shilling A, Shi YY, Leslie JB, Allard M, Turan A, Windle P, Odom-Forren J, 
Hooper VD, Radke OC, Ruiz J, Kovac A. Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery? 
Anesthesiology. 2012 Sep;117(3):475-86. 
14. Apfel CC, Zhang K, George E, Shi S, Jalota L, Hornuss C, Fero KE, Heidrich F, Pergolizzi JV, Cakmakkaya OS, 
Kranke P. Transdermal scopolamine for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and 
meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2010 Nov;32(12):1987-2002. 
15. Rhodes VA, McDaniel RW. The Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching: a new format of the lndex of Nausea and 
Vomiting. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1999 Jun;26(5):889-94. 
16. Afaneh C, Costa R, Pomp A, Dakin G. A prospective randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of 
omentopexy during laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in reducing postoperative gastrointestinal symptoms. Surg Endosc. 
2015 Jan;29(1):41-7. 
17. Feldman LS, Lee L, Fiore J Jr. What outcomes are important in the assessment of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery 
(ERAS) pathways? Can J Anaesth. 2015. Feb;62(2):120-30. 
18. Mechanick JI, Youdim A, Jones DB, Timothy Garvey W, Hurley DL, Molly McMahon M, Heinberg LJ, Kushner R, 
Adams TD, Shikora S, Dixon JB, Brethauer S. Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and 
nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient--2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical 
Endocrinologists, the Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 
2013 Mar-Apr;9(2):159-91. 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

19. Eypasch E, Williams JI, Wood-Dauphinee S, Ure BM, Schmülling C, Neugebauer E,  Troidl H. Gastrointestinal 
Quality of Life Index: development, validation and application of a new instrument. Br J Surg. 1995 Feb;82(2):216-22. 
20. Lee WJ, Huang MT, Yu PJ, Wang W, Chen TC. Laparoscopic vertical banded gastroplasty and laparoscopic gastric 
bypass: a comparison. Obes Surg. 2004 May;14(5):626-34. 
21. Freys SM, Tigges H, Heimbucher J, Fuchs KH, Fein M, Thiede A. Quality of life following laparoscopic gastric 
banding in patients with morbid obesity. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001 Jul-Aug;5(4):401-7. 
22. Ignat M, Vix M, Imad I, D'Urso A, Perretta S, Marescaux J, Mutter D. Randomized trial of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass 
versus sleeve gastrectomy in achieving excess weight loss. Br J Surg. 2016 Nov 30. 
23. Nickel F, Schmidt L, Bruckner T, Billeter AT, Kenngott HG, Müller-Stich BP, Fischer L. Gastrointestinal Quality of 
Life Improves Significantly After Sleeve Gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass-a Prospective Cross-Sectional 
Study Within a 2-Year Follow-up. Obes Surg. 2016 Nov 22. 
24. Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery 
score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 2013 Jun;118(6):1332-40. 
25. Shida D, Wakamatsu K, Tanaka Y, Yoshimura A, Kawaguchi M, Miyamoto S, Tagawa K. The postoperative patient-
reported quality of recovery in colorectal cancer patients under enhanced recovery after surgery using QoR-40. BMC 
Cancer. 2015 Oct 26;15:799. 
26. Kleif J, Vilandt J, Gögenur I. Recovery and convalescence after laparoscopic surgery for appendicitis: A longitudinal 
cohort study. J Surg Res. 2016 Oct;205(2):407-18. 
27. Tarride JE, Breau R, Sharma AM, Hong D, Gmora S, Guertin JR, O'Reilly D, Xie F, Mehran A. The Effect of 
Bariatric Surgery on Mobility, Health-Related Quality of Life, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Employment Status. 
Obes Surg. 2017 Feb;27(2):349-356. 
28. Sauerland S, Weiner S, Dolezalova K, Angrisani L, Noguera CM, García-Caballero M, Rupprecht F, Immenroth M. 
Mapping utility scores from a disease-specific quality-of-life measure in bariatric surgery patients. Value Health. 2009 
Mar-Apr;12(2):364-70. 
29. Date RS, Walton SJ, Ryan N, Rahman SN, Henley NC. Is selection bias toward super obese patients in the rationing 
of metabolic surgery justified?--A pilot study from the United Kingdom. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013 Nov-Dec;9(6):981-6. 
Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)

Approved: 5/22/2019
Expiration Date: 5/21/2020
Stony Brook University Human Subjects Committee (IRB)