BackgroundNeuraxial anesthesia when compared with general anesthesia has shown to improve outcomes following lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. It is unclear whether these benefits are present in outpatient surgery given the selection of healthier patients.ObjectiveTo compare the effects of neuraxial versus general anesthesia on outcomes following ambulatory hip and knee arthroplasty.MethodsMulticentered retrospective cohort study in ambulatory hip or knee arthroplasty patients between January 2017 and December 2019. Primary endpoint examined 30-day major postoperative complications (mortality, myocardial infarction, deep venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and acute renal failure).ResultsOf 11 523 eligible patients identified, 10 003 received neuraxial anesthesia, while 1520 received general anesthesia. 30-day major complications did not differ between neuraxial anesthesia and general anesthesia groups (1.8% vs 2.3%; aOR=0.85, CI: 0.56 to 1.27, p=0.39). There was no difference in 30-day minor complications (surgical site infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection; 3.3% vs 4.1%; aOR=0.83, CI: 0.62 to 1.14, p=0.23). The neuraxial group demonstrated reduced pain and analgesia requirements and had less postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Median recovery room length of stay was shorter by 52 min in the general anesthesia group, but these patients were more likely to fail same day discharge (33% vs 23.4%; p<0.01).ConclusionAnesthesia type was not associated with an increased risk for complications. However, neuraxial anesthesia improved outcomes that predict readiness for discharge: patients had less pain, required less opioids, and had a lower incidence of PONV, thus improving the rate of same day discharge.Trial registration numberNCT04203732.
Summary
Background
Effective pain management involves a cycle of continual pain assessment, good pain control strategies, and assessment of a standard quality improvement measures. A validated questionnaire that focuses on the quality of postoperative pain management in pediatric surgical patients and parental satisfaction on pain treatment is lacking. We, therefore, modified the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire to evaluate the quality of postoperative pain management in a pediatric surgical setting. The primary aim of this study was to validate the modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire.
Methods
Parents whose children aged below 12 years and were scheduled for elective surgery in a teaching hospital, were approached to participate in this survey. The reliability of the modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha test, while the construct validity was assessed with a principal component analysis using a varimax rotation. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment received was measured.
Results
A total of 108 parents completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the questionnaire shows a Cronbach's alpha of 0.798. Principal component analysis revealed a four‐factor structure of the 12 items which explained 69.7% of the total variance. The factors are “Interference of sleep and activity,” “Pain severity and drowsiness,” “Perception of care,” and “Adverse effects,” respectively. Our study showed that this questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure for “Interference of sleep and activity” and “Pain severity and drowsiness” factors, but not for “Perception of care” and “Adverse effects.” The results for “Perception of care” and “Adverse effects,” therefore, should be reported as individual items instead of total score. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment given was good (median 8.0; IQR 3.0).
Conclusion
The modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire is a feasible and easy instrument to administer. The questionnaire can be used to obtain feedback from parents about the outcomes and experiences of pain management and is helpful in continuous quality evaluation and improvement in the postoperative care in a pediatric setting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.