Introduction Common anesthesia practice for hand surgery combines a preoperative regional anesthetic and intraoperative monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Despite adequate regional anesthesia, patients may receive doses of intraoperative sedatives which can result in oversedation and potentially avoidable complications. VR could prove to be a valuable tool for patients and providers by distracting the mind from processing noxious stimuli resulting in minimized sedative use and reduced risk of oversedation without negatively impacting patient satisfaction. Our hypothesis was that intraoperative VR use reduces sedative dosing during elective hand surgery without detracting from patient satisfaction as compared to a usual care control. Methods Forty adults undergoing hand surgery were randomized to receive either intraoperative VR in addition to MAC, or usual MAC. Patients in both groups received preoperative regional anesthesia at provider discretion. Intraoperatively, the VR group viewed programming of their choice via a head-mounted display. The primary outcome was intraoperative propofol dose per hour (mg · hr-1). Secondary outcomes included patient reported pain and anxiety, overall satisfaction, functional outcome, and post anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay (LOS). Results Of the 40 enrolled patients, 34 completed the perioperative portion of the trial. VR group patients received significantly less propofol per hour than the control group (Mean (±SD): 125.3 (±296.0) vs 750.6 (±334.6) mg · hr-1, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in patient reported overall satisfaction, (0–100 scale, Median (IQR) 92 (77–100) vs 100 (100–100), VR vs control, p = 0.087). There were no significant differences between groups in PACU pain scores, perioperative opioid analgesic dose, or in postoperative functional outcome. PACU LOS was significantly decreased in the VR group (53.0 (43.0–72.0) vs 75.0 (57.5–89.0) min, p = 0.018). Conclusion VR immersion during hand surgery led to significant reductions in intraoperative propofol dose and PACU LOS without negatively impacting key patient reported outcomes.

No abstract

Background In this study, we explored the utility of intravenous opioid rescue analgesia in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU-OpResc) as a single marker of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) failure and evaluated the resource implications and quality improvement applications of this measure. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all TEA placements over a three-year period at a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. The study exposure was PACU-OpResc. Primary outcome was PACU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included reasons for delayed PACU discharge and intraoperative hypotension. The analyses were adjusted for confounding variables including patient comorbidities, surgical complexity, intraoperative intravenous opioids, chronic opioid use and local anesthetic bolus through TEA catheter. Post analysis chart review was conducted to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of PACU-OpResc for inadequate TEA. As a first Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, we then introduced a checkbox for documentation of a sensory level check after TEA placement. Post implementation data was collected for 7 months. Results PACU-OpResc was required by 211 (22.1%) patients who received preoperative TEA, was associated with longer PACU LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.20, 95% CI:1.07–1.34, p = 0.001) and delayed discharge due to inadequate pain control (odds ratio 5.15, 95% CI 3.51–7.57, p <  0.001). PACU-OpResc had a PPV of 76.3 and 60.4% for re-evaluation and manipulation of the TEA catheter in PACU, respectively. Following implementation of a checkbox, average monthly compliance with documented sensory level check after TEA placement was noted to be 39.7%. During this time, a reduction of 8.2% in the rate of PACU-OpResc was observed. Conclusions This study demonstrates that PACU-OpResc can be used as a quality assurance measure or surrogate for TEA efficacy, to track performance and monitor innovation efforts aimed at improving analgesia, such as our intervention to facilitate sensory level checks and reduced PACU-OpResc. Trial registration not applicable.

Background: In this study, we explored the prevalence of intravenous opioid rescue analgesia in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU-OpResc) as a single marker of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) failure and evaluated the resource implications and quality improvement applications of this measure. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all TEA placements during 2016-2018 at a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. The study exposure was the need for intravenous opioid rescue analgesia in the PACU (PACU-OpResc). Primary outcome was PACU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included delayed PACU discharge and intraoperative hypotension. The analyses were adjusted for confounding variables including patient comorbidities, surgical complexity, intraoperative intravenous opioids, chronic opioid use and local anesthetic bolus through TEA catheter. Post analysis chart review was conducted to determine the positive predictive value (PPV) of PACU-OpResc for inadequate TEA. As a first Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, we then introduced a checkbox for documentation of a sensory level check (SLC) after TEA placement. Post implementation data was collected for 7 months. Results: PACU-OpResc was required by 211 (22.1%) patients who received preoperative TEA, was associated with longer PACU LOS (incidence rate ratio 1.20, 95% CI:1.07–1.34, p=0.001) and delayed discharge due to inadequate pain control (odds ratio 5.15, 95% CI 3.51–7.57, p<0.001). PACU-OpResc had a PPV of 76.3% and 60.4% for re-evaluation and manipulation of the TEA catheter in PACU, respectively. Following implementation of a checkbox, average monthly compliance with documented SLCs after TEA placement was noted to be 39.7%. During this time, a reduction of 8.2% in the rate of PACU-OpResc was observed.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PACU-OpResc can be used as a quality assurance measure or surrogate for TEA efficiency, to track performance and monitor innovation efforts aimed at improving analgesia, such as our intervention to facilitate SLCs and reduced PACU-OpResc.