SARS-CoV-2 = severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; WHO = World Health Organization Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has now become a global pandemic. This has led the United States to declare a national emergency and resulted in a ban on all elective diagnostic and therapeutic procedures as well as elective surgery in inpatient and outpatient settings. Ambulatory surgery facilities (ASF) that perform only elective procedures are thus likely to be closed. However, these facilities may be able to assist acute care hospitals as essential (urgent and emergent) surgeries and diagnostic and therapeutic procedures will still need to be performed. The aim of this article is to explore the potential contribution of ASFs in the current health care crisis. It is important to understand that COVID-19-related information is continually evolving, and thus, the discussion provided here is subject to change.
With migration of medically complex patients undergoing more extensive surgical procedures to the ambulatory setting, selecting the appropriate patient is vital. Patient selection can impact patient safety, efficiency, and reportable outcomes at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Identifying suitability for ambulatory surgery is a dynamic process that depends on a complex interplay between the surgical procedure, patient characteristics, and the expected anesthetic technique (eg, sedation/analgesia, local/regional anesthesia, or general anesthesia). In addition, the type of ambulatory setting (ie, short-stay facilities, hospital-based ambulatory center, freestanding ambulatory center, and office-based surgery) and social factors, such as availability of a responsible individual to take care of the patient at home, can also influence patient selection. The purpose of this review is to present current best evidence that would provide guidance to the ambulatory anesthesiologist in making an informed decision regarding patient selection for surgical procedures in freestanding ambulatory facilities.
Purpose of reviewPostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) continue to plague the surgical patient population with an adverse impact on postoperative outcomes. The aim of this review is to critically assess current evidence for PONV management, including studies evaluating baseline risk reduction and antiemetic prophylaxis, to provide a pragmatic approach to prevention and treatment of PONV in routine clinical practice. Recent findingsMultiple recent reviews and guidelines have been published on this topic with some limitations. In the current ERAS era, all patients irrespective of their PONV risk should receive two to three antiemetics for prophylaxis. Patients at a high risk of PONV [i.e. prior history of PONV, history of motion sickness, high opioid requirements after surgery (e.g. inability to use nonopioid analgesic techniques)] should receive three to four antiemetics for prophylaxis. SummaryThis review provides a practical approach to PONV prevention based on recent literature.
Background: Bier block provides anesthesia of an entire extremity distal to the tourniquet without necessitating direct injection at the surgical site. This avoids obscuring anatomy with local anesthetic and anesthetizes a wide area, allowing for multiple procedures and incisions. We hypothesize that a low-volume Bier block with forearm tourniquet, rather than a traditional brachial tourniquet, is a safe, well-tolerated, and effective anesthesia technique. Methods: All cases in which adult patients underwent hand procedures using Bier block anesthesia by a single surgeon over a 4-year period were reviewed. Data collected included patient demographics, procedure(s) performed, complications, tourniquet time and settings, procedure and in-room time, and supplemental medications administered. Results: In all, 319 patients were included, 103 from a university hospital and 216 from an ambulatory surgery center. The most commonly performed procedures were carpal tunnel release (205 cases) and trigger digit release (83 cases). Most patients received a 125-mg dose of lidocaine for the Bier block; many also received additional sedatives. Twenty-three patients received no additional medications. No patients required conversion to general anesthesia. One complication (0.3%) occurred, with paresthesias and tinnitus that resolved without intervention. The average tourniquet time was 24 minutes (SD = 4.3 minutes). Patients were discharged at a median of 49 minutes postoperatively, and 9.1% of patients received supplemental analgesics prior to discharge. Conclusions: Regional anesthesia achieved with a forearm tourniquet and intravenous local anesthetic provides adequate pain control, permits timely discharge home, and has a low complication rate. It should be considered for use in outpatient hand procedures.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.