[Ambulatory and day surgery]

Anesthetic Approach in Ambulatory Vitrectomy: Peribulbar Block vs. Balanced General Anesthesia

Background

Vitrectomy is one of the most common outpatient ophthalmic surgeries. The anesthetic technique used in outpatient surgery should contribute to a faster functional recovery, better pain control, and fewer complications. The aim of this study was to compare peribulbar block and balanced general anesthesia, in patients undergoing outpatient vitrectomy.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was carried out, including adult patients undergoing ambulatory vitrectomy, between January and February 2018. Peribulbar block or balanced general anesthesia was the independent variable analyzed. Clinical and perioperative variables were evaluated, namely, postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting in the postoperative period, intraoperative hypotension, patient satisfaction with the anesthetic technique, time to oral diet introduction and to hospital discharge, operating room occupancy time, and pharmacological costs. SPSS^® 27 was used for statistical analyses.

Results

Twenty-one patients were evaluated, 11 of whom underwent peribulbar block and 10 underwent balanced general anesthesia. Patients undergoing peribulbar block did not experience postoperative pain when compared to patients undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.001). Intraoperative hypotension occurred in 18.2% of patients undergoing peribulbar block and in 70% of those undergoing balanced general anesthesia (p=0.03). Time to oral diet introduction (<1 hour vs. > 2 hours; p < 0.05), operating room occupancy time (70 vs. 90 minutes; p=0.027), time to hospital discharge (17 vs. 22.5 hours; p=0.004), and pharmacological costs (4.65 vs. 12.09 euros; p < 0.05) were lower in patients undergoing peribulbar block versus balanced general.

Conclusions

Peribulbar block seems to meet the criteria of an ideal anesthetic technique in outpatient vitrectomy surgery.

[Regional anesthesia in daily clinical practice: an economic analysis based on case vignettes]

BACKGROUND

The economic effect is a crucial aspect of every medical procedure. This article analyzes the economic implications of various methods in anesthesia based on three case vignettes.

METHODS

The management of anesthesia of a forearm fracture with sufficient brachial plexus blockade, general anesthesia and insufficient brachial plexus blockade with subsequent general anesthesia was analyzed with respect to the relevant cost factors (personnel costs, durables, consumables, fixed assets costs, anesthesia-related overhead costs).

RESULTS

Sufficient regional anesthesia was the least expensive method for a forearm fracture with 324.26 €, followed by general anesthesia with 399.18 € (+23% compared with regional anesthesia). Insufficient regional anesthesia was most the expensive method, which necessitated an additional general anesthesia (482.55 €, +49% compared with sufficient regional anesthesia).

CONCLUSION

Even considering that this cost analysis was calculated based on data from only one medical institution (General Hospital of Vienna, Medical University of Vienna), regional anesthesia appeared to be cost efficient compared with other anesthesia procedures. Main cost drivers in this example were personnel costs.

i-gel™ in Ambulatory Surgery: A Comparison with LMA-ProSeal™ in Paralyzed Anaesthetized Patients

INTRODUCTION

Supraglottic devices have mostly eliminated the need of hemodynamically stressful routine endotracheal intubation for ambulatory surgeries. We aimed to compare hemodynamics- like blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) alterations caused by stress response due to i-gel™ and LMA-ProSeal™ usage in Day care surgeries. Secondary outcomes included ease of insertion, time and number of attempts for the placement of devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From April 2008 to July 2009, Sixty adult ASA I-II patients of either sex, aged 20-30, were randomly allocated into two groups (Group i-gel (n=30) receiving i-gel and Group PLMA (n=30) receiving LMA-ProSeal for airway maintenance) undergoing day care surgical procedures under general anaesthesia (GA).The ease of insertion and time taken for placement of device, postoperative complications were assessed. Haemodynamic parameters (HR, BP) were noted. It was a prospective, double blinded, and randomized controlled study. Parametric data were analyzed with the unpaired t-test and non-parametric data were analyzed with the Chi-square test. Unless otherwise stated, data are presented as mean (+ SD). p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Demographically both the groups were similar. i-gel was more easily inserted than LMA-ProSeal (90% vs. 83.33% respectively). i-gel insertion time was shorter than PLMA (14.9 vs. 20.0 sec respectively) and was statistically significant. Hemodynamics (HR, BP) were less altered in i-gel than PLMA and the results were statistically significant (p <0.05).

CONCLUSION

i-Gel; a relatively newer and cheap supraglottic device; insertion is easier and quicker as well as hemodynamically less stressful when compared with LMA-ProSeal in a day care setting.

Pain after elective arthroscopy of the knee: a prospective, randomised, study comparing conventional NSAID to coxib

Although outpatient knee arthroscopy is probably by far the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedure, there are limited guidelines or consensus concerning the peroral postoperative pain management. A diversity of analgesics both in potency and action is prescribed. The purpose of the present investigation was to grade the pain and need for rescue medication during the first 4 days after the knee arthroscopy, comparing a conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with a selective cox-II-inhibitor (coxib) as postoperative pain medication. One hundred and twenty-two patients scheduled for primary elective knee arthroscopy in general anaesthesia were randomised to either a NSAID (lornoxicam) or a selective cox-II-inhibitor (rofecoxib) postoperatively. Pain ratings and the need for rescue medication were followed for four consecutive days. Side effects were also registered. The need for rescue analgesics was highest the evening after surgery, when 42% of patients required one, or more, oral additional analgesics. The use of rescue medication decreased with time and 30, 25, 16 and 11% of the patients required additional analgesics for day 1 to 4, respectively, still 50% of all patients required at some point one or more rescue analgesics. Overall pain ratings were low, and showed similar pattern with evening and day, 50% of all patients required at some point one or more rescue analgesics. We found, however, no differences in pain ratings, or need for rescue analgesics between the two groups, conventional NSAID and coxib as well as no difference in side-effect profile. In conclusion, patients do require proper pain management also after minor outpatient surgical procedures such as knee arthroscopy. The traditional NSAIDs seem to be the first choice for analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, when needed after elective arthroscopy of the knee.