Either thoracic epidural analgesia with LA plus opioid or continuous paravertebral block with LA can be recommended. Where these techniques are not possible, or are contraindicated, intrathecal opioid or intercostal nerve block are recommended despite insufficient duration of analgesia, which requires the use of supplementary systemic analgesia. Quantitative meta-analyses were limited by heterogeneity in study design, and subject numbers were small. Further well designed studies are required to investigate the optimum components of the epidural solution and to rigorously evaluate the risks/benefits of continuous infusion paravertebral and intercostal techniques compared with thoracic epidural analgesia.

No abstract

Optimal evidence-based perioperative blood glucose control in patients undergoing ambulatory surgical procedures remains controversial. Therefore, the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia has developed a consensus statement on perioperative glycemic management in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according the protocol recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. The consensus panel used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for providing suggestions. It was revealed that there is insufficient evidence to provide strong recommendations for the posed clinical questions. In the absence of high-quality evidence, recommendations were based on general principles of blood glucose control in diabetics, drug pharmacology, and data from inpatient surgical population, as well as clinical experience and judgment. In addition, areas of further research were also identified.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

SummaryThe PROSPECT Working Group, a collaboration of anaesthetists and surgeons, conducts systematic reviews of postoperative pain management for different surgical procedures (http://www.postoppain.org). Evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the effective management of postoperative pain are then developed from these systematic reviews, incorporating clinical practice observations, and transferable evidence from other relevant procedures. We present the results of a systematic review of pain and other outcomes following analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The evidence from this review supports the use of general anaesthesia combined with a femoral nerve block for surgery and postoperative analgesia, or alternatively spinal anaesthesia with local anaesthetic plus spinal morphine. The primary technique, together with cooling and compression techniques, should be supplemented with paracetamol and conventional non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs or COX‐2‐selective inhibitors, plus intravenous strong opioids (high‐intensity pain) or weak opioids (moderate‐ to low‐intensity pain).

Titrating desflurane and sevoflurane using the BIS monitor decreased their utilization and contributed to a faster emergence from anesthesia in outpatients undergoing laparoscopic tubal ligation procedures.

The suitability of ambulatory surgery for a patient with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) remains controversial because of concerns of increased perioperative complications including postdischarge death. Therefore, a Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia task force on practice guidelines developed a consensus statement for the selection of patients with OSA scheduled for ambulatory surgery. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Although the studies evaluating perioperative outcome in OSA patients undergoing ambulatory surgery are sparse and of limited quality, they do provide useful information that can guide clinical practice. Patients with a known diagnosis of OSA and optimized comorbid medical conditions can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if they are able to use a continuous positive airway pressure device in the postoperative period. Patients with a presumed diagnosis of OSA, based on screening tools such as the STOP-Bang questionnaire, and with optimized comorbid conditions, can be considered for ambulatory surgery, if postoperative pain can be managed predominantly with nonopioid analgesic techniques. On the other hand, OSA patients with nonoptimized comorbid medical conditions may not be good candidates for ambulatory surgery. What other guidelines are available on this topic? The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) practice guidelines for management of surgical patients with OSA published in 2006. Why was this guideline developed? The ASA guidelines are outdated because several recent studies provide new information such as validated screening tools for clinical diagnosis of OSA and safety of ambulatory laparoscopic bariatric surgery in OSA patients. Therefore, an update on the selection of patients with OSA undergoing ambulatory surgery is warranted. How does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? Unlike the ASA guidelines, this consensus statement recommends the use of the STOP-Bang criteria for preoperative OSA screening and considers patients' comorbid conditions in the patient selection process. Also, current literature does not support the ASA recommendations that upper abdominal procedures are not appropriate for ambulatory surgery. Why does this guideline differ from existing guidelines? This consensus statement differs from existing ASA guidelines because of the availability of new evidence.

The purpose of the Society of Anesthesia and Sleep Medicine Guideline on Intraoperative Management of Adult Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence. This guideline seeks to address questions regarding the intraoperative care of patients with OSA, including airway management, anesthetic drug and agent effects, and choice of anesthesia type. Given the paucity of high-quality studies with regard to study design and execution in this perioperative field, recommendations were to a large part developed by subject-matter experts through consensus processes, taking into account the current scientific knowledge base and quality of evidence. This guideline may not be suitable for all clinical settings and patients and is not intended to define standards of care or absolute requirements for patient care; thus, assessment of appropriateness should be made on an individualized basis. Adherence to this guideline cannot guarantee successful outcomes, but recommendations should rather aid health care professionals and institutions to formulate plans and develop protocols for the improvement of the perioperative care of patients with OSA, considering patient-related factors, interventions, and resource availability. Given the groundwork of a comprehensive systematic literature review, these recommendations reflect the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a group of experts at the time of publication. While periodic reevaluations of literature are needed, novel scientific evidence between updates should be taken into account. Deviations in practice from the guideline may be justifiable and should not be interpreted as a basis for claims of negligence.