SummaryTo date, postoperative quality of recovery lacks a universally accepted definition and assessment technique. Current quality of recovery assessment tools vary in their development, breadth of assessment, validation, use of continuous vs dichotomous outcomes and focus on individual vs group recovery. They have progressed from identifying pure restitution of physiological parameters to multidimensional assessments of postoperative function and patient-focused outcomes. This review focuses on the progression of these tools towards an as yet unreached ideal that would provide multidimensional assessment of recovery over time at the individual and group level. A literature search identified 11 unique recovery assessment tools. The Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale assesses recovery in multiple domains, including physiological, nociceptive, emotive, activities of daily living, cognition and patient satisfaction. It addresses recovery over time and compares individual patient data with base line, thus describing resumption of capacities and is an acceptable method for identification of individual patient recovery.

SummaryRecovery is an abstract quantity the definition of which varies according to the pre-dilection of individual institutions, clinicians or patients. While traditionally focused on immediate postoperative restitution of function and readiness for discharge, recovery assessment has progressively expanded its focus to include other clinically relevant time periods, each of which is influenced by specific factors. Assessment tools have progressed from assessing one dimension of recovery, such as physiological variables, to multidimensional assessment of physical, nociceptive, emotive, functional and cognitive performance. They should be validated ideally for repeat measures and should provide realtime recovery data, as recovery can be viewed as a continuous process. Recovery time periods -relevance, influences and focus Postoperative recovery is complete when function is restored and adverse symptoms have resolved. Function and symptoms can be assessed at time points considered significant by the patient, clinician or institution.The outcomes of the 'enhanced recovery after surgery' pathways were initially determined by clinicians rather than patients, and emphasised what happened in hospital -length of hospital stay, complications and early organ dysfunction [1]. However, reductions in length of hospital stay and complications associated with the enhanced recovery pathway are of limited interest to patients [2,3]. Patients rarely achieve normal levels of function and are usually symptomatic on discharge after major surgery, the timing of which is influenced by organisational factors and correlates poorly with longer term recovery [1,2].Postoperative enhanced recovery, as a process and as an endpoint, is now assessed during three stages: from the end of surgery to discharge from the postanaesthetic care unit; from then until hospital discharge; and, finally, until normal function has been restored. Simple physiological variables predominantly influence the first stage. The second and third stages are predominantly influenced by pain, more complex physiology and function.Tools generated by clinicians from various specialties, rather than just surgery, also define recovery over three phases, their cumulative duration exceeding 72

Quality of recovery is a complex construct whose definition is influenced heavily by the opinions and biases of the individual patient, clinician, or institution. As a result, recovery assessment tools differ in their fundamental definitions of recovery, breadth, and assessment time frame. Accurate assessment of recovery is essential as suboptimal recovery has both economic and prognostic implications. Quality of care is often substituted as a surrogate at the institutional level for quality of recovery, but it is ideologically distinct from patients' perceived quality of care, recovery, and satisfaction. Recovery tools also differ in their assessment of recovery as a continuous vs dichotomous variable and in their focus at the group vs individual level. Ideally, recovery measures should assess outcomes in a simple dichotomous fashion and maintain relevancy by assessing in multiple domains at various time points. Assessment of recovery in a dichotomous fashion also has both clinical and research applications. It allows identification of suboptimal recovery at both individual and group levels, respectively, and when performed in real time, it allows the opportunity for timely targeted intervention specific to individual patients as well as for resource rationalization.Résumé La qualité de récupération est un construit complexe dont la définition est fortement influencée par les opinions et les biais du patient, du clinicien, voire de l'établissement. Dès lors, les outils d'évaluation de la récupération diffèrent de par la définition-même de la récupération, leur envergure, et le cadre temporel de l'évaluation. Une évaluation précise de la récupération est essentielle; en effet, une récupération sous-optimale a des implications tant économiques que pronostiques. Au niveau institutionnel, on utilise souvent la qualité des soins comme substitut de la qualité de récupération mais, d'un point de vue idéologique, ce concept se distingue de la qualité des soins, de la récupération et de la satisfaction telles que perçues par les patients. Les outils de récupération diffèrent également dans leur évaluation de la récupération en tant que variable continue ou dichotomique et dans leur emphase sur le groupe ou l'individu. Dans l'idéal, les mesures de la récupération devraient évaluer les pronostics de manière dichotomique simple et maintenir leur pertinence en évaluant plusieurs domaines à différents moments dans le temps. L'évaluation dichotomique de la récupération a également des applications cliniques et en recherche. Elle permet d'identifier une récupération sous-optimale tant au niveau du groupe que de l'individu. D'autre part, lorsque ce type d'évaluation est réalisé en temps réel, elle nous donne la possibilité d'intervenir d'une manière ciblée et opportune spécifique à chaque patient tout en rationnalisant les ressources.Author contributions Andrea Bowyer and Colin Royse contributed substantially to the conception and design of the manuscript and drafted the version to be published.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that midazolam, when used as a component of sedation for colonoscopy, may impair cognition and prolong recovery. We aimed to identify whether midazolam produced short- and longer-term effects on multiple dimensions of recovery including cognition. METHODS: A 2-center double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized, phase IV study with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted in adults ≥18 years of age undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy, with sufficient English language proficiency to complete the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS). Participants were administered either midazolam (0.04 mg·kg−1) or an equivalent volume of 0.9% saline before sedation with propofol with or without an opiate. The primary outcome was incidence of recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy, which was analyzed using a χ2 test. Secondary outcomes included recovery in other domains of the PostopQRS over time, time to eye-opening, and hospital stay, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction. All hypotheses were defined before recruitment. RESULTS: During September 2015 to June 2018, 406 patients were allocated to either midazolam (n = 201) or placebo (n = 205), with one withdrawn before allocation. There was no significant difference in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy (midazolam 86.8% vs placebo 88.7%, odds ratio, 0.838; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–1.683; P= .625). Furthermore, there was no difference in recovery over time in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS (P = .534). Overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time but was not different between groups. Furthermore, there were no differences between groups for nociceptive, emotive, activities-of-daily-living domains of the PostopQRS. Patient and endoscopist satisfaction were high and not different. There were no differences in time to eye-opening (midazolam 9.4 ± 12.8 minutes vs placebo 7.3 ± 0.7 minutes; P = .055), or time to hospital discharge (midazolam 103.4 ± 1.4 minutes vs placebo 98.4 ± 37.0 minutes; P = .516). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of midazolam 0.04 mg·kg−1 as adjunct to propofol and opiate sedation for elective colonoscopy did not show evidence of any significant differences in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS, overall quality of recovery as measured by the PostopQRS, or emergence and hospital discharge times. The use of midazolam should be determined by the anesthesiologist.

Summary Deep neuromuscular block aims to improve operative conditions during laparoscopic surgery with a lower intra‐abdominal pressure. Studies are conflicting on whether meaningful improvements in quality of recovery occur beyond emergence, and whether lower intra‐abdominal pressure is achieved. In this pragmatic randomised trial with 1:1 allocation, adults undergoing elective laparoscopic surgery were allocated to moderate neuromuscular block reversed with neostigmine, or deep neuromuscular block reversed with sugammadex. Allocation was revealed to the anaesthetist only. Primary outcome was cognitive recovery of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale, 7 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included recovery in other domains of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale at 15 min and 40 min; days 1, 3, 7, 14; and 1 and 3 months after surgery. Chi‐square test was used for the primary outcome, and generalised linear mixed model for recovery over time between groups. Of 350 participants randomised, 140 (deep) and 144 (moderate) were analysed for the primary outcome. There was no difference in the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale cognitive domain at day 7 (deep 92.9% vs. moderate 91.8%, OR 1.164; 95%CI 0.486–2.788, p = 0.826), or at any other time‐point. No significant difference was observed for physiological, emotive, activities of daily living, nociception, or overall recovery. Length of stay in the recovery area (mean (SD) deep 108 (58) vs. moderate 109 (57) min, p = 0.78) and hospital (1.8 (1.9) vs. 2.6 (3.5) days, p = 0.019) was not different. Intra‐abdominal pressure and surgical operating conditions were not different between groups. Deep neuromuscular block did not improve quality of recovery compared with moderate neuromuscular block in operative laparoscopic surgery over a 1‐h duration.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS III), a multi‐center randomized controlled trial, demonstrated clinical non‐inferiority for restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, it is uncertain if transfusion strategy affects long‐term health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). Study Design and Methods In this planned sub‐study of Australian patients in TRICS III, we sought to determine the non‐inferiority of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy on long‐term HRQOL and to describe clinical outcomes 24 months postoperatively. The restrictive strategy involved transfusing RBCs when hemoglobin was <7.5 g/dl; the transfusion triggers in the liberal group were: <9.5 g/L intraoperatively, <9.5 g/L in intensive care, or <8.5 g/dl on the ward. HRQOL assessments were performed using the 36‐item short form survey version 2 (SF‐36v2). Primary outcome was non‐inferiority of summary measures of SF‐36v2 at 12 months, (non‐inferiority margin: −0.25 effect size; restrictive minus liberal scores). Secondary outcomes included non‐inferiority of HRQOL at 18 and 24 months. Results Six hundred seventeen Australian patients received allocated randomization; HRQOL data were available for 208/311 in restrictive and 217/306 in liberal group. After multiple imputation, non‐inferiority of restrictive transfusion at 12 months was not demonstrated for HRQOL, and the estimates were directionally in favor of liberal transfusion. Non‐inferiority also could not be concluded at 18 and 24 months. Sensitivity analyses supported these results. There were no differences in quality‐adjusted life years or composite clinical outcomes up to 24 months after surgery. Discussion The non‐inferiority of a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy was not established for long‐term HRQOL in this dataset.