Quality of Recovery from Anesthesia in Neurosurgical Patients

Background

Factors influencing quality of recovery in cranial and spinal neurosurgical patients are not known, possibly because of lack of a suitable instrument. Therefore, the authors measured quality of recovery using the QoR-40 score (a 40-item questionnaire on quality of recovery from anesthesia).

Methods

With informed consent, 200 patients undergoing elective neurosurgery were recruited. The QoR-40 score, visual analog scores for pain and quality of recovery, and data on complications were collected over 90 days. The psychometrics of the QoR-40 were tested and regression models were developed to determine predictors of quality of recovery and postoperative pain.

Results

The QoR-40 score demonstrated significant responsiveness, validity, and reliability. In cranial surgery patients, QoR-40 scores were lower on days 1 and 2 than either preoperatively or on days 3, 30, and 90. In spinal surgery patients, QoR-40 scores were lower preoperatively and on days 1 and 2 than on days 3, 30, and 90. Longer duration of surgery, more complications, and higher visual analog scores for pain were predictors of poor quality of recovery on day 3. Cranial surgery patients had moderately severe pain on days 1 and 2, whereas spinal surgery patients reported moderate pain for the whole study period. Neurologic deficits were negatively correlated with QoR-40 scores in cranial and spinal surgery patients.

Conclusions

The QoR-40 score is a useful instrument with which to assess quality of recovery in cranial and spinal surgery patients. Postoperative pain and neurologic deficits correlate with poor quality of recovery in these patients.

The pain visual analog scale: is it linear or nonlinear?

The visual analog scale (VAS) is a tool widely used to measure pain, yet controversy surrounds whether the VAS score is ratio or ordinal data. We studied 52 postoperative patients and measured their pain intensity using the VAS. We then asked them to consider different amounts of pain (conceptually twice as much and then half as much) and asked them to repeat their VAS rating after each consideration (VAS2 and VAS3, respectively). Patients with unrelieved pain had their pain treated with IV fentanyl and were then asked to rate their pain intensity when they considered they had half as much pain. We compared the baseline VAS (VAS1) with VAS2 and VAS3. The mean (95% confidence interval) for VAS2:1 was 2.12 (1.81-2.43) and VAS3:1 was 0.45 (0.38-0.52). We conclude that the VAS is linear for mild-to-moderate pain, and the VAS score can be treated as ratio data.

IMPLICATIONS

A change in the visual analog scale score represents a relative change in the magnitude of pain sensation. Use of the VAS in comparative analgesic trials can now meaningfully quantify differences in potency and efficacy.