Under “real world” conditions, desflurane increases drug cost without speeding discharge after short ambulatory anesthesia compared to isoflurane

Anesthesia for TORS for Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: Factors Associated with Prolonged Phase I Postanesthesia Recovery

OBJECTIVES

Clinical variables affecting anesthetic recovery following transoral robotic surgery (TORS) to resect oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma have not been described. We aimed to explore risk factors associated with prolonged postanesthesia recovery following TORS.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case-control study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center, January 2010 to November 2016.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients included adults undergoing primary TORS ± neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Patients were categorized by phase I recovery time into the "goal" recovery group (75th percentile [lower 3 quartiles], n = 272) and the "prolonged" recovery group (n = 91). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the associations between clinical characteristics and prolonged phase I recovery.

RESULTS

A total of 363 patients were included. Median (interquartile range) duration of postanesthesia recovery was 1.5 hours (1.0-2.0). Prolonged recovery was associated with isoflurane (odds ratio, 2.83 [95% CI, 1.56-5.14], P < .001), midazolam (2.77 [1.50-5.12], P = .001), and larger opioid doses (1.26 [1.01-1.58] per 10-mg intravenous morphine equivalents, P = .040) and inversely associated with multimodal antiemetic therapy (0.34 [0.15-0.78], P = .011). Prolonged cases had higher rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting (n = 43 [47.2%] vs 86 [31.6%], P = .008), respiratory depression (28 [30.8%] vs 12 [4.4%], P < .001), sedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale < -2; 26 [28.6%] vs 35 [12.9%], P = .001), severe pain (numeric rating score ≥7; 31 [34.4%] vs 45 [17.2%], P = .001), and longer hospital stays (4 vs 3 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Several anesthetic factors are associated with anesthesia recovery duration, which may be shortened by efforts to reduce postoperative sedation, severe pain, and nausea/vomiting. Shortened anesthesia recovery time may reduce hospital stay.

Evaluation of hyoscine N-butyl bromide efficacy on the prevention of catheter-related bladder discomfort after transurethral resection of prostate: a randomized, double-blind control trial

BACKGROUND

Transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) is the most common treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Urinary tract catheter is inserted post-operatively which results in catheter-related bladder discomfort (CRBD) in many patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the preventive effect of hyoscine N-butyl bromide on CRBD caused by a urinary tract catheter after TURP surgery in patients with BPH.

METHODS

Twenty-four and twenty-six patients in the treatment and control groups were enrolled, respectively. At the end of the surgery, slow intravenous injection of 20 mg hyoscine N-butyl bromide was administered to the patients of treatment group. The severity of CRBD was followed up at five different time periods and up to 2 h after surgery.

RESULTS

On arrival to PACU and after 30 min of injection, statistically significant less CRBD was seen in the treatment group comparing to the control group (P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.007). The total utilized meperidine dose during PACU stay and the time to discharge for the intervention group were significantly lower than those for the control group (P ≤ 0.0001) with no significant difference in adverse effects (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hyoscine N-butyl bromide could reduce the severity of CRBD related to TURP in patients with BPH and their need for analgesic consumption either. It shortened the length of stay in the recovery room. Regarding its availability and low cost, it can be an effective pain relief drug for CRBD discomfort related to TURP in BPH patients.

Example of cost calculations for an operating room and a post-anaesthesia care unit

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost of an operating room using data from our hospital. Using an accounting-based method helped us.

METHODS

Over the year 2012, the sum of direct and indirect expenses with cost sharing expenses allowed us to calculate the cost of the operating room (OR) and of the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU).

RESULTS

The cost of the OR and PACU was €10.8 per minute of time offered. Two thirds of the direct expenses were allocated to surgery and one third to anaesthesia. Indirect expenses were 25% of the direct expenses. The cost of medications and single use medical devises was €111.45 per anaesthesia. The total cost of anaesthesia (taking into account wages and indirect expenses) was €753.14 per anaesthesia as compared to the total cost of the anaesthesia. The part of medications and single use devices for anaesthesia was 14.8% of the total cost.

CONCLUSION

Despite the difficulties facing cost evaluation, this model of calculation, assisted by the cost accounting controller, helped us to have a concrete financial vision. It also shows that a global reflexion is necessary during financial decision-making.

Anaesthesia for day surgery

The Department of Health (DH) proposes that 75% of elective surgery should be performed as a day case procedure (NHS Plan 2000). To achieve this some modification of the traditional selection criteria may be required and careful thought given to the patient pathway, including the anaesthetic technique. Successful anaesthesia for day case surgery requires a balanced anaesthetic technique and multidisciplinary input which commences at booking, runs through preoperative assessment and continues to a nurse-led discharge. Suitable patients need to be selected (Digner 2007), prepared both physically and psychologically, undergo minimally invasive surgery with a suitable anaesthetic technique encompassing good pain relief and the avoidance of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Pain and PONV are the most common causes for a patient to require unplanned admission (Junger 2001).

Cost drivers in anesthesia: manpower, technique and other factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the recent literature on cost drivers in anesthesia with respect to staff, techniques and drug costs, and with special focus on anesthesia workflow in the postanesthesia care unit. Moreover, the costs of post-operative pain management provided by an acute pain service are highlighted.

RECENT FINDINGS

Staff costs represent the main contributor to anesthesia costs in all studies. Therefore, many studies address the reduction of personnel costs, e.g. by using fast-tracking procedures which allow the patients to bypass the postanesthesia care unit. However, postanesthesia care unit bypassing and replacement of anesthesiologists by certified anesthesia nurses were not able to significantly decrease anesthesia costs. If anesthesiologists are reimbursed by surgically controlled time, this time is the main determinator for anesthesia costs and should be carefully monitored. Regional anesthesia techniques can help to reduce costs in the ambulatory setting because of reduced post-operative side-effects and earlier home readiness of the patients. Low gas flow and modern electroencephalographic monitoring can contribute to decreased drug-related costs. Acute pain services are mainly run by anesthesia staff thus increasing the costs in anesthesia departments. However, an acute pain service can reduce costs of surgical procedures significantly.

SUMMARY

Clear definition of the meaning of cost drivers and of criteria which allow assessment of patients' condition, and peri-operative standard operating procedures are warranted to ensure comparability of economic data in anesthesia.