ASRA Comes to San Francisco!

GGB
Golden Gate Bridge

This year’s American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine’s 13th Annual Fall Pain Medicine meeting happens to be in my “neck of the woods”—one of the greatest cities in the world—San Francisco, California.  Here are a few things you may or may not have known about San Francisco.

San Francisco is the biggest little city.  At just under 47 square miles and with more than 200,000 inhabitants, San Francisco is second only to New York City in terms of population density.  Despite its relatively small size, “the City” (as we suburbanites refer to it) consists of many small neighborhoods, each with its own charm and character:  Union Square, the Financial District, Pacific Heights, the Marina, Haight-Ashbury, Chinatown, Little Italy, Nob Hill, Russian Hill, SoMa (South of Market), the Fillmore, Japantown, Mission District, Noe Valley, Twin Peaks, Castro, Sunset, Tenderloin, and others.  For this reason, San Francisco may arguably be the only option for die-hard New Yorkers who wish to relocate away from snow.

Chinatown
Chinatown

Even though it doesn’t snow, San Francisco weather is incredibly unpredictable, even when going from one side of the city to the other.  “The coldest winter I ever spent was a summer in San Francisco,” a quote often mistakenly attributed to Mark Twain (no one really knows who actually said it), is nevertheless often true.  Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, our local meteorologists provide daily forecasts for each of the region’s microclimates.  The western side of the City along California’s coast is regularly plagued with fog while the eastern side of the City tends to be sunny most days of the year.  It’s always a good idea to check the microclimate forecast before heading over to see the Golden Gate Bridge just in case it happens to be shrouded in fog.  Also, average July temperatures in the City range in the 50s-60s Fahrenheit (no different than average November temperatures), so summer tourists often contribute to the local economy by buying “SF” logo sweatshirts for their walk across the City’s most famous bridge.

Ferry Bldg
Ferry Building

San Francisco is very family-friendly.  If you’re debating whether or not to make a family trip out of the Fall Pain Meeting, my advice is to do it.  Right around the conference hotel, the Hyatt Regency San Francisco, there are a number of attractions and events worth checking out.  Every Saturday there is a huge farmers market at the Ferry Building across the street from the hotel.  As you probably figured out, from the Ferry Building you can also take a ferry ride to a number of other destinations in the Bay Area (I recommend Sausalito, a short trip that takes you past Alcatraz).  For kids, there are 3 parks within walking distance, the San Francisco Railway Museum, Exploratorium, and the cable car turnabout at Powell and Market Street; trips to Fisherman’s Wharf or the aquarium are a short taxi or cable car ride away.  In addition, runners will love running up and down the Embarcadero which gives you a view of the Bay Bridge and takes you past the City’s many piers; shoppers will be in heaven; and foodies have an impossible decision to make when choosing the location for every meal (try Slanted Door at the Ferry Building at least once).

Enough about San Francisco—you’ll have to see it for yourself.  To register for the Fall Pain Medicine meeting, visit http://www.asrameetings.com/. For an overview of scheduled events in the words of meeting Chair, Dr. David Provenzano, see the August 2014 issue of ASRA News.  This issue also includes fantastic original content covering the topics of digital subtraction angiography, pain outcomes, ASRA’s first entry into the app market, and much more!

 

Related Posts:

Regional Anesthesia & Rehabilitation Outcomes after Knee Replacement

kneeAmong Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, the number of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures from 1991 to 2010 increased by 161.5% (1). Postoperative pain remains one of patients’ top concerns when undergoing elective surgery (2) and can limit patients’ functional ability in the early postoperative period (3). Providing effective perioperative pain control has potential longer-term implications since early rehabilitation may lead to improvements in functional outcomes later on (4). With the ability to select specific targets for local anesthetic injection and infusion, regional anesthesia techniques, neuraxial and peripheral, are commonly included in the perioperative analgesic protocol for joint arthroplasty patients (5-11). While the data supporting the analgesic efficacy of regional anesthesia techniques in this setting are strongly positive, studies attempting to attribute functional outcome benefits to regional anesthesia demonstrate mixed results.

The main challenge in assessing functional outcomes following joint replacement is the selection of outcomes; these can be divided into performance-based outcomes and self-reported outcomes (12, 13). Performance-based outcomes are measurable and arguably more objective, although often subject to effort. Examples of these outcomes and their units of measure include joint range of motion in degrees (e.g., flexion, extension, rotation); timed walking tests in meters (e.g., 6 minute walking test [6MWT], 2 minute walking test [2MWT]); muscle strength in units of force using a dynamometer (e.g., maximum voluntary isometric contraction [MVIC]); and timed up-and-go (TUG) in minutes (12, 13). Self-reported outcomes are typically survey-based; examples include the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Society Score, and Lower Extremity Functional Scale (12, 13). Since patient perception of successful rehabilitation is an important factor, self-reported outcomes should be reported with performance-based outcomes (12). Another important challenge when measuring and comparing functional outcomes is that clinical pathways for joint arthroplasty that integrate pain management (including regional analgesia), physical therapy, nursing, and surgical care are often specific to individual institutions, and institutions may vary with respect to rehabilitation goals and the timeline to achieve them.

Epidural Analgesia

Epidural analgesia has been used for perioperative pain management in joint replacement patients since at least the 1980s (14, 15). In 1987, Raj and colleagues compared postoperative systemic opioid analgesia to continuous epidural analgesia (bupivacaine 0.25% at 6-15 ml/hr) for TKA patients in a prospective non-randomized study (14). Although pain scores were lower in the epidural group, not surprisingly a high proportion of these patients experienced complete motor block of the lower extremities; although the authors mention “rigorous passive exercises,” specific rehabilitation outcomes were not reported (14). Later studies have reported functional benefits associated with continuous epidural analgesia, such as shorter time to achieve ambulation distance and range of motion goals, when compared to parenteral opioids alone (16). At institutions where continuous epidural analgesia is currently employed as part of a multimodal analgesic protocol, very low doses of local anesthetic (e.g., 0.06% bupivacaine) in combination with opioid are used in order to minimize motor block (17).

Peripheral Nerve Blocks

The innervation of the knee is complex and involves contributions from both the lumbar and sacral plexuses. While epidural analgesia is effective, it is also associated with clinically-significant side effects (e.g., nausea/vomiting and motor block of the non-operative limb) (5, 18) and the potential for neuraxial hematoma in patients on pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (19). Thus, peripheral nerve block options, either single-injection or continuous infusions, have been explored for postoperative pain management.

Two early studies by Capdevila (6) and Singelyn (20) have shown continuous femoral nerve block (FNB) to provide comparable analgesia and physical therapy outcome achievement with fewer side effects when compared to epidural analgesia. Both of these studies also demonstrated shorter hospital length of stay for the regional anesthesia groups compared to an opioid-only group (6, 20), but hospitalization duration for these studies was, on average, greater than what has been reported in other studies (21). Triple-masked, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials have shown that CPNB can shorten the time to achieve discharge criteria, including 100 m ambulation distance, for TKA (10, 22) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) (9) patients, but actual hospital duration was similar in these studies.

One of the interesting findings from the Singelyn study was that regional anesthesia patients maintained a knee flexion advantage over the opioid-only group at 6 week follow-up (20); although this advantage did not remain at 3 months, this finding supported the potential for long-term functional improvement resulting from effective pain management and early rehabilitation in the immediate perioperative period (4). In a randomized comparison of continuous FNB to local infiltration analgesia (LIA) for TKA, the FNB group spent more time out of bed walking; at 6 weeks, the FNB group showed more improvement in performance-based (6MWT) and self-reported functional outcome assessments (23). In contrast, the one year follow-up studies of randomized clinical trial subjects (9, 10, 22) using self-reported outcome measures for functional status (WOMAC) did not show long-term improvement associated with regional anesthesia techniques (24-27).

The rehabilitation outcome measured in the immediate postoperative period that correlates best with long-term functional improvement is not yet established. Ambulation distance is often measured by physical therapists and included in discharge criteria (9, 10, 22). For institutions that emphasize ambulation in their clinical pathway for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, a major concern raised with regard to FNBs is the potential association with increased fall risk (28, 29) although a recent large database study disputes this finding. In-hospital falls can lead to prolonged hospital stays with higher costs and are associated with more frequent postoperative complications, including serious organ system dysfunction and death (30). With currently-available local anesthetic solutions and typical doses, perineural infusion does produce clinically-significant quadriceps weakness when administered near the femoral nerve or lumbar plexus (31, 32). Since the local anesthetics themselves cannot select sensory over motor nerves( 33), anesthesiologists have started exploring alternate nerve block locations to minimize the risk of motor block and maximize patient rehabilitation.

From Workman JJ, et al. Presented at 2013 ASRA Spring Annual Meeting
From Workman JJ, et al. Presented at 2013 ASRA Spring Annual Meeting

For TKA, a more distal nerve block location in the adductor canal can provide effective analgesia postoperatively (34) and has been shown to better preserve quadriceps strength compared to a FNB in both volunteers (35) and clinical patients (11). Regional analgesic techniques are only one part of the overall pain management plan. While they are often included in multimodal analgesic protocols along with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, and low-dose opioids (36), there is a growing body of evidence to support the adductor canal block as the regional analgesic technique of choice for promoting postoperative ambulation within a clinical pathway (37, 38).

For patient information with answers to frequently-asked questions about regional anesthesia, please see “Regional Anesthesia FAQs.”

References

  1. Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, Wolf BR. Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010. JAMA. Sep 26 2012;308(12):1227-1236.
  2. Macario A, Weinger M, Carney S, Kim A. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patients. Anesth Analg. Sep 1999;89(3):652-658.
  3. Holm B, Kristensen MT, Myhrmann L, et al. The role of pain for early rehabilitation in fast track total knee arthroplasty. Disability and rehabilitation. 2010;32(4):300-306.
  4. Munin MC, Rudy TE, Glynn NW, Crossett LS, Rubash HE. Early inpatient rehabilitation after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. JAMA. Mar 18 1998;279(11):847-852.
  5. Barrington MJ, Olive D, Low K, Scott DA, Brittain J, Choong P. Continuous femoral nerve blockade or epidural analgesia after total knee replacement: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Anesth Analg. Dec 2005;101(6):1824-1829.
  6. Capdevila X, Barthelet Y, Biboulet P, Ryckwaert Y, Rubenovitch J, d’Athis F. Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery. Anesthesiology. Jul 1999;91(1):8-15.
  7. Chelly JE, Greger J, Gebhard R, et al. Continuous femoral blocks improve recovery and outcome of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. Jun 2001;16(4):436-445.
  8. Hebl JR, Dilger JA, Byer DE, et al. A pre-emptive multimodal pathway featuring peripheral nerve block improves perioperative outcomes after major orthopedic surgery. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Nov-Dec 2008;33(6):510-517.
  9. Ilfeld BM, Ball ST, Gearen PF, et al. Ambulatory continuous posterior lumbar plexus nerve blocks after hip arthroplasty: a dual-center, randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Anesthesiology. Sep 2008;109(3):491-501.
  10. Ilfeld BM, Le LT, Meyer RS, et al. Ambulatory continuous femoral nerve blocks decrease time to discharge readiness after tricompartment total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Anesthesiology. Apr 2008;108(4):703-713.
  11. Jaeger P, Zaric D, Fomsgaard JS, et al. Adductor canal block versus femoral nerve block for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Nov-Dec 2013;38(6):526-532.
  12. Choi S, Trang A, McCartney CJ. Reporting functional outcome after knee arthroplasty and regional anesthesia: a methodological primer. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jul-Aug 2013;38(4):340-349.
  13. Bernucci F, Carli F. Functional outcome after major orthopedic surgery: the role of regional anesthesia redefined. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. Oct 2012;25(5):621-628.
  14. Raj PP, Knarr DC, Vigdorth E, et al. Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of a local anesthetic and administration of systemic narcotics in the management of pain after total knee replacement surgery. Anesth Analg. May 1987;66(5):401-406.
  15. Pettine KA, Wedel DJ, Cabanela ME, Weeks JL. The use of epidural bupivacaine following total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic review. Aug 1989;18(8):894-901.
  16. Mahoney OM, Noble PC, Davidson J, Tullos HS. The effect of continuous epidural analgesia on postoperative pain, rehabilitation, and duration of hospitalization in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. Nov 1990(260):30-37.
  17. YaDeau JT, Cahill JB, Zawadsky MW, et al. The effects of femoral nerve blockade in conjunction with epidural analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg. Sep 2005;101(3):891-895, table of contents.
  18. Zaric D, Boysen K, Christiansen C, Christiansen J, Stephensen S, Christensen B. A comparison of epidural analgesia with combined continuous femoral-sciatic nerve blocks after total knee replacement. Anesth Analg. Apr 2006;102(4):1240-1246.
  19. Horlocker TT, Wedel DJ, Rowlingson JC, et al. Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Third Edition). Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jan-Feb 2010;35(1):64-101.
  20. Singelyn FJ, Deyaert M, Joris D, Pendeville E, Gouverneur JM. Effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine, continuous epidural analgesia, and continuous three-in-one block on postoperative pain and knee rehabilitation after unilateral total knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg. Jul 1998;87(1):88-92.
  21. Salinas FV, Liu SS, Mulroy MF. The effect of single-injection femoral nerve block versus continuous femoral nerve block after total knee arthroplasty on hospital length of stay and long-term functional recovery within an established clinical pathway. Anesth Analg. Apr 2006;102(4):1234-1239.
  22. Ilfeld BM, Mariano ER, Girard PJ, et al. A multicenter, randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial of the effect of ambulatory continuous femoral nerve blocks on discharge-readiness following total knee arthroplasty in patients on general orthopaedic wards. Pain. Sep 2010;150(3):477-484.
  23. Carli F, Clemente A, Asenjo JF, et al. Analgesia and functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty: periarticular infiltration vs continuous femoral nerve block. Br J Anaesth. Aug 2010;105(2):185-195.
  24. Ilfeld BM, Shuster JJ, Theriaque DW, et al. Long-term pain, stiffness, and functional disability after total knee arthroplasty with and without an extended ambulatory continuous femoral nerve block: a prospective, 1-year follow-up of a multicenter, randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled trial. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Mar-Apr 2011;36(2):116-120.
  25. Morin AM, Kratz CD, Eberhart LH, et al. Postoperative analgesia and functional recovery after total-knee replacement: comparison of a continuous posterior lumbar plexus (psoas compartment) block, a continuous femoral nerve block, and the combination of a continuous femoral and sciatic nerve block. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Sep-Oct 2005;30(5):434-445.
  26. Ilfeld BM, Ball ST, Gearen PF, et al. Health-related quality of life after hip arthroplasty with and without an extended-duration continuous posterior lumbar plexus nerve block: a prospective, 1-year follow-up of a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. Aug 2009;109(2):586-591.
  27. Ilfeld BM, Meyer RS, Le LT, et al. Health-related quality of life after tricompartment knee arthroplasty with and without an extended-duration continuous femoral nerve block: a prospective, 1-year follow-up of a randomized, triple-masked, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. Apr 2009;108(4):1320-1325.
  28. Feibel RJ, Dervin GF, Kim PR, Beaule PE. Major complications associated with femoral nerve catheters for knee arthroplasty: a word of caution. J Arthroplasty. Sep 2009;24(6 Suppl):132-137.
  29. Ilfeld BM, Duke KB, Donohue MC. The association between lower extremity continuous peripheral nerve blocks and patient falls after knee and hip arthroplasty. Anesth Analg. Dec 2010;111(6):1552-1554.
  30. Memtsoudis SG, Dy CJ, Ma Y, Chiu YL, Della Valle AG, Mazumdar M. In-hospital patient falls after total joint arthroplasty: incidence, demographics, and risk factors in the United States. J Arthroplasty. Jun 2012;27(6):823-828 e821.
  31. Charous MT, Madison SJ, Suresh PJ, et al. Continuous femoral nerve blocks: varying local anesthetic delivery method (bolus versus basal) to minimize quadriceps motor block while maintaining sensory block. Anesthesiology. Oct 2011;115(4):774-781.
  32. Ilfeld BM, Moeller LK, Mariano ER, et al. Continuous peripheral nerve blocks: is local anesthetic dose the only factor, or do concentration and volume influence infusion effects as well? Anesthesiology. Feb 2010;112(2):347-354.
  33. Ilfeld BM, Yaksh TL. The end of postoperative pain–a fast-approaching possibility? And, if so, will we be ready? Reg Anesth Pain Med. Mar-Apr 2009;34(2):85-87.
  34. Lund J, Jenstrup MT, Jaeger P, Sorensen AM, Dahl JB. Continuous adductor-canal-blockade for adjuvant post-operative analgesia after major knee surgery: preliminary results. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Jan 2011;55(1):14-19.
  35. Jaeger P, Nielsen ZJ, Henningsen MH, Hilsted KL, Mathiesen O, Dahl JB. Adductor Canal Block versus Femoral Nerve Block and Quadriceps Strength: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Crossover Study in Healthy Volunteers. Anesthesiology. Feb 2013;118(2):409-415.
  36. Practice guidelines for acute pain management in the perioperative setting: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Acute Pain Management. Anesthesiology. Feb 2012;116(2):248-273.
  37. Perlas A, Kirkham KR, Billing R, et al. The impact of analgesic modality on early ambulation following total knee arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jul-Aug 2013;38(4):334-339.
  38. Mudumbai SC, Kim TE, Howard SK, et al. Continuous adductor canal blocks are superior to continuous femoral nerve blocks in promoting early ambulation after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 May;472(5):1377-83.

 

Related Posts:

Anesthesiology and Perioperative Outcomes Research: Where Should We Focus?

Since 2012, the American Society of Anesthesiologists has promoted the Perioperative Surgical Home model in which anesthesiologists function as leaders in the coordination of perioperative care for surgical patients to improve outcomes (1,2). While anesthesiologists globally have had similar interests over the years, the unifying challenge continues to be the selection of outcomes and demonstration of improvement due to the anesthesiologist’s role and/or choice of anesthetic or analgesic technique. Since the types of outcomes and frequency of occurrence vary widely, a comprehensive discussion of perioperative outcomes is beyond the scope of this summary. Therefore, this review will focus on select anesthesiologist-driven factors related to acute pain management and anesthetic technique on perioperative outcomes and potential research directions.

Rare Outcomes and Big Data

For anesthesiologists, avoiding adverse events of the lowest frequency (death, recall, and nerve injury) receives highest priority with death ranking first among complications to avoid (3). Studies involving rare outcomes, positive or negative, will invariably require accumulation of “big data.” Such studies must either involve multiple institutions over a long study period (if prospective) or access data involving a large cohort of patients for retrospective studies; these study designs involving longitudinal data may also require advanced statistical methods (4). For example, Memtsoudis and colleagues sought to evaluate postoperative morbidity and mortality for lower extremity joint arthroplasty patients in a recent study (5). They utilized a large nationwide administrative database maintained by Premier Perspective, Inc. (Charlotte, NC, USA); the study data were gathered from 382,236 patients in approximately 400 acute care hospitals throughout the United States over 4 years (5). Other retrospective cohort studies comparing the occurrence of perioperative complications such as surgical site infections, cardiopulmonary morbidity, and mortality have used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) (6-8). NSQIP originally started within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system in the 1980s with a small sample of hospitals; this project, which included public reporting of outcomes data, eventually expanded to include all VHA surgical facilities and others outside the VHA system (9). Multi-center prospective registries such as the SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline (10, 11) and AURORA (12, 13) have been developed for outcomes research and have reported the occurrence rates of rare complications related to regional anesthesia. The disadvantages to these data-driven studies include lack or randomization introducing potential bias, missing or incorrectly coded data, inability to draw conclusions regarding causation, and restrictions to access such as information security issues and/or cost (e.g., the Premier database). However, these retrospective cohort database studies may offer large samples sizes and administrative data from actual “real world” patients over a longer period of time and may identify important associations that influence clinical practice and generate hypotheses for future prospective studies.

Anesthesia Type and Perioperative Mortality

Based on the study by Memtsoudis and colleagues, overall 30-day mortality for lower extremity arthroplasty patients is lower for patients who receive neuraxial and combined neuraxial-general anesthesia compared to general anesthesia alone (5). In most categories, the rates of occurrence of in-hospital complications are also lower for the neuraxial and combined neuraxial-general anesthesia groups vs. the general anesthesia group, and transfusion requirements are lowest for the neuraxial group compared to all other groups (5). Studies using NSQIP have reported no difference in 30-day mortality for carotid endarterectomy patients associated with anesthetic technique although regional anesthesia patients are more likely to have a shorter operative time and next-day discharge (8); similarly, there is no difference in 30-day mortality for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair although general anesthesia patients are more likely to have longer length of stay and pulmonary complications (14).

Perioperative Analgesia and Cancer Recurrence

In a relatively-small matched retrospective study, Exadaktylos and colleagues have reported lower rates of recurrence and metastasis for breast cancer surgery patients who receive paravertebral analgesia vs. conventional systemic opioids (15). Although the exact mechanism was not well-understood at that time (regional anesthesia vs. reduction in the use of anesthetic agents and opioids), clinical and basic science research in this area has grown rapidly and has demonstrated mixed results. A follow-up study involving 503 patients who underwent abdominal surgery for cancer and were previously enrolled in a large multi-center clinical trial (16) and a retrospective database study of 424 colorectal cancer patients who underwent laparoscopic resection (17) have not shown a difference in recurrence-free survival or mortality. A recent meta-analysis including 14 prospective and retrospective studies involving cancer patients (colorectal, ovarian, breast, prostate, and hepatocellular) demonstrates a positive association between epidural analgesia and overall survival but no difference in recurrence-free survival compared to general anesthesia with opioid analgesia (18).

Analgesic Technique and Persistent Postsurgical Pain

Chronic pain may develop after many common operations including breast surgery, hernia repair, thoracic surgery, and amputation and is associated with severe acute pain in the postoperative period (19). While regional analgesic techniques are effective for acute pain management, currently-available data are inconclusive with regard to their ability to prevent the development of persistent postsurgical pain (20-22). There is an opportunity to use larger databases to investigate this issue further.

Ultrasound and Patient Safety

In 2010, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine published a series of articles presenting the evidence basis for ultrasound in regional anesthesia (23). According to the article focused on patient safety, evidence at the time suggested that ultrasound may decrease the incidence of minor adverse events (e.g., hemidiaphragmatic paresis from interscalene block or inadvertent vascular puncture), but serious complications such as local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) and nerve injury did not occur at different rates based on the nerve localization technique (24). Since then, a large prospective multi-center registry study has shown that the use of ultrasound in regional anesthesia does reduce the incidence of LAST compared to traditional techniques (13). Similar methodology may be applied to other rare complications associated with anesthetic interventions.

Perioperative Medicine and Health Care Costs

Approximately 31% of costs related to inpatient perioperative care is attributable to the ward admission (25). Anesthesiologists as perioperative physicians have an opportunity to influence the cost of surgical care by decreasing hospital length of stay through effective pain management and by developing coordinated multi-disciplinary clinical pathways (26, 27).

REFERENCES

  1. Vetter TR, Goeddel LA, Boudreaux AM, Hunt TR, Jones KA, Pittet JF. The Perioperative Surgical Home: how can it make the case so everyone wins? BMC anesthesiology. 2013;13:6.
  2. Vetter TR, Ivankova NV, Goeddel LA, McGwin G, Jr., Pittet JF. An Analysis of Methodologies That Can Be Used to Validate if a Perioperative Surgical Home Improves the Patient-centeredness, Evidence-based Practice, Quality, Safety, and Value of Patient Care. Anesthesiology. Dec 2013;119(6):1261-1274.
  3. Macario A, Weinger M, Truong P, Lee M. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are both common and important to avoid? The perspective of a panel of expert anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg. May 1999;88(5):1085-1091.
  4. Ma Y, Mazumdar M, Memtsoudis SG. Beyond repeated-measures analysis of variance: advanced statistical methods for the analysis of longitudinal data in anesthesia research. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jan-Feb 2012;37(1):99-105.
  5. Memtsoudis SG, Sun X, Chiu YL, et al. Perioperative comparative effectiveness of anesthetic technique in orthopedic patients. Anesthesiology. May 2013;118(5):1046-1058.
  6. Liu J, Ma C, Elkassabany N, Fleisher LA, Neuman MD. Neuraxial anesthesia decreases postoperative systemic infection risk compared with general anesthesia in knee arthroplasty. Anesth Analg. Oct 2013;117(4):1010-1016.
  7. Radcliff TA, Henderson WG, Stoner TJ, Khuri SF, Dohm M, Hutt E. Patient risk factors, operative care, and outcomes among older community-dwelling male veterans with hip fracture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Jan 2008;90(1):34-42.
  8. Schechter MA, Shortell CK, Scarborough JE. Regional versus general anesthesia for carotid endarterectomy: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program perspective. Surgery. Sep 2012;152(3):309-314.
  9. Ingraham AM, Richards KE, Hall BL, Ko CY. Quality improvement in surgery: the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program approach. Advances in surgery. 2010;44:251-267.
  10. Auroy Y, Benhamou D, Bargues L, et al. Major complications of regional anesthesia in France: The SOS Regional Anesthesia Hotline Service. Anesthesiology. Nov 2002;97(5):1274-1280.
  11. Auroy Y, Narchi P, Messiah A, Litt L, Rouvier B, Samii K. Serious complications related to regional anesthesia: results of a prospective survey in France. Anesthesiology. Sep 1997;87(3):479-486.
  12. Barrington MJ, Watts SA, Gledhill SR, et al. Preliminary results of the Australasian Regional Anaesthesia Collaboration: a prospective audit of more than 7000 peripheral nerve and plexus blocks for neurologic and other complications. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Nov-Dec 2009;34(6):534-541.
  13. Barrington MJ, Kluger R. Ultrasound guidance reduces the risk of local anesthetic systemic toxicity following peripheral nerve blockade. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jul-Aug 2013;38(4):289-297.
  14. Edwards MS, Andrews JS, Edwards AF, et al. Results of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with general, regional, and local/monitored anesthesia care in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2011;54(5):1273-1282.
  15. Exadaktylos AK, Buggy DJ, Moriarty DC, Mascha E, Sessler DI. Can anesthetic technique for primary breast cancer surgery affect recurrence or metastasis? Anesthesiology. Oct 2006;105(4):660-664.
  16. Myles PS, Peyton P, Silbert B, Hunt J, Rigg JR, Sessler DI. Perioperative epidural analgesia for major abdominal surgery for cancer and recurrence-free survival: randomised trial. BMJ. 2011;342:d1491.
  17. Day A, Smith R, Jourdan I, Fawcett W, Scott M, Rockall T. Retrospective analysis of the effect of postoperative analgesia on survival in patients after laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer. Br J Anaesth. Aug 2012;109(2):185-190.
  18. Chen WK, Miao CH. The effect of anesthetic technique on survival in human cancers: a meta-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies. PloS one. 2013;8(2):e56540.
  19. Kehlet H, Jensen TS, Woolf CJ. Persistent postsurgical pain: risk factors and prevention. Lancet. May 13 2006;367(9522):1618-1625.
  20. Kairaluoma PM, Bachmann MS, Rosenberg PH, Pere PJ. Preincisional paravertebral block reduces the prevalence of chronic pain after breast surgery. Anesth Analg. Sep 2006;103(3):703-708.
  21. Schnabel A, Reichl SU, Kranke P, Pogatzki-Zahn EM, Zahn PK. Efficacy and safety of paravertebral blocks in breast surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. Dec 2010;105(6):842-852.
  22. Wildgaard K, Ravn J, Kehlet H. Chronic post-thoracotomy pain: a critical review of pathogenic mechanisms and strategies for prevention. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. Jul 2009;36(1):170-180.
  23. Neal JM, Brull R, Chan VW, et al. The ASRA evidence-based medicine assessment of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia and pain medicine: Executive summary. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Mar-Apr 2010;35(2 Suppl):S1-9.
  24. Neal JM. Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia and patient safety: An evidence-based analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Mar-Apr 2010;35(2 Suppl):S59-67.
  25. Macario A, Vitez TS, Dunn B, McDonald T. Where are the costs in perioperative care? Analysis of hospital costs and charges for inpatient surgical care. Anesthesiology. Dec 1995;83(6):1138-1144.
  26. Ilfeld BM, Mariano ER, Williams BA, Woodard JN, Macario A. Hospitalization costs of total knee arthroplasty with a continuous femoral nerve block provided only in the hospital versus on an ambulatory basis: a retrospective, case-control, cost-minimization analysis. Reg Anesth Pain Med. Jan-Feb 2007;32(1):46-54.
  27. Jakobsen DH, Sonne E, Andreasen J, Kehlet H. Convalescence after colonic surgery with fast-track vs conventional care. Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Oct 2006;8(8):683-687.

 

Related Posts:

More Journal Club, Less Book Report

ArticleWhen I hear clinical research articles presented for Journal Club, the presentations are sometimes very dry and remind me of book reports–just regurgitating statements made by the authors of the article.  In reality, Journal Club should offer a “deep dive” into study design and scientific methodology.

In the following outline, I suggest a format for evaluating clinical research articles layer by layer.  This can be used by the presenter as well as the discussion moderator to promote a more interactive Journal Club.  Coincidentally, the same format can also be used by journal reviewers and editors when reviewing submitted manuscripts (in other words–this is how I review manuscripts).

Background:  Provide a brief synopsis of preliminary studies cited in the introduction leading up to the present study.

  1. Is the present study justified?  (Should not be lengthy if there is clearly a need for the study)
  2. Do the authors present a hypothesis or hypotheses?
  3. What is the primary aim/objective of the study?  Secondary aims/objectives?

Study Design:  Do the authors explicitly state the design used in the present study?  If so, what is it?

Retrospective (aka “case-control”):  Starts with the outcome then looks back in time for exposure to risk factors or intervention

  1. Can calculate odds ratios to estimate relative risk.
  2. Cannot calculate risk/incidence (not prospective).

Cross-sectional (aka “prevalence study”):  Takes a snapshot of risk factors and outcome of interest at one point in time or over a specific period of time

  1. Can calculate prevalence.
  2. Cannot calculate risk/incidence (not longitudinal).

Prospective (aka “cohort”):  Gold standard for clinical research–may be observational or interventional/experimental (Is it prospectively registered?  Check clinicaltrials.gov)

  • Observational (cohort study)
  1. May or may not have a designated control group (can start with defined group and risk factors are discovered over time such as the Framingham Study).
  2. Can calculate incidence and relative risk for certain risk factors.
  3. Identify causal associations.
  • Interventional/Experimental
  1. What is the intervention or experiment?
  2. Is there blinding?  If so, who is blinded:  single, double, or triple (statistician blinded)?
  3. Are the groups randomized?  How is this performed?
  4. Is there a sample size estimate and what is it based on (alpha and beta error, population mean and SD, expected effect size)?
  5. What are the study groups?  Are the groups independent or related?
  6. Is there a control group–placebo (for efficacy studies) or active comparator (standard of care)?

Measurements:  How are the outcome variables operationalized?  Check the validity, precision, and accuracy of the measurement tools (e.g., survey or measurement scale).

  1. Validity:  Has the tool been used before?  Is it reliable?  Does the tool make sense (face validity)?  Is the tool designed to measure the outcome of interest (construct validity)?
  2. Precision:  Does the tool hit the target?
  3. Accuracy:  Are the results reproducible?

Analysis:  What statistical tests are used and are they appropriate?  How do the authors determine statistical significance (p-value or confidence intervals)?  How are the results presented in the paper and are they clear?

  1. Categorical variables with independent groups:  1 outcome and 2 groups = Chi square test (exact tests are used when n<5 in any field); multiple outcomes or multiple groups = Kruskal Wallis (with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc multiple comparisons test (e.g., Tukey-Kramer).
  2. Continuous variables with independent groups:  1 outcome and 2 groups = Student’s t test (if normal distribution) or Mann-Whitney U test (if distribution not normal); multiple outcomes or multiple groups = ANOVA with post-hoc multiple comparisons testing; multiple outcomes and multiple groups = linear regression.
  3. Continuous variables with related groups:  paired t test or repeated-measures ANOVA depending on the number of outcomes and groups.
  4. Are the results statistically significant?  Clinically significant?
  5. Do the results make sense?

Conclusions:  Skip the discussion section of the paper at first and come up with your own conclusions based on the study results; then read what the authors have to say.

  1. Did the authors succeed in proving what they set out to prove?
  2. Read the discussion section.  Do you agree with the authors’ conclusions?
  3. What are possible future studies based on the results of the present study and how would you design the next study?

Related Posts:

Save the Date for SIMPAR 2015

SIMPAR4

Save the Date for the 7th SIMPAR Meeting, which will be held in Rome, Italy, March 27th-28th, 2015.

The purpose of SIMPAR is to gather some of the world’s most innovative pain medicine specialists and promote the international sharing of experience and knowledge, creating common directions in pain management and research in order to optimize pharmacological and interventional therapies toward evidence-based management of the fifth vital sign.

The Conference is typically divided into two working days. The first day is organized into Parallel Symposia focused on these topics: “Acute Pain,” “Chronic Pain,” and “Basic Science (bench to bedside).” The Plenary Session will be held on the second day, and it will focus on the newest advances in pain diagnosis and treatment.

SIMPAR will welcome abstract submissions and offers a travel award for the top abstract. Please continue to check the SIMPAR website for updates:  http://simpar.eu.

Related Posts:

Do We Need the ASRA Pre-Block Checklist?

Originally included in my editorial for the May 2014 issue of ASRA News.

ASRA News May 2014I make checklists for everything.  Whenever I go on a trip, I use the same packing checklist to make sure I don’t forget anything – umbrella, jacket, socks, snacks, passport, and a few other things.  Using a checklist not only ensures that I bring everything I’m going to need on the trip; I’m convinced that it makes my packing ritual faster because I don’t have to keep going back and forth to my suitcase whenever I suddenly remember something I left out.  Even our dog has her own packing checklist for trips to her sitter’s house.  Now that my wife and I have 2 kids, the traveling checklist has gotten more complex and even more essential.

As an anesthesiologist, I believe that checklists are part of our culture whether we state them explicitly or not.  When I first started my training as a new anesthesiology resident, I learned a mnemonic “MOM SAID” (although there are variations) to check and set up my anesthesia workstation before every case.  Each letter stood for an important element of my preparation checklist:  Machine Oxygen Monitors Suction Airway IV Drugs.  I would then follow this mnemonic with reminders for myself; for example “MOM SAID, ‘don’t forget your stethoscope’ or “MOM SAID, ‘don’t forget to print a baseline EKG strip.’  Over the years, I have found modified forms of this same checklist to be useful just before and after induction, and I continue to use this method today.

Unfortunately, in the complex environment of surgery and perioperative medicine, there aren’t easy mnemonics for everything, and medical errors happen.  The use of a formal checklist for surgical and invasive procedures that promotes interactive discussion among all team members and includes important steps related to the entire surgical episode has been promoted by the World Health Organization (WHO) as part of its global Safe Surgery Saves Lives campaign (http://www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery/en/).  In the May 2014 issue of ASRA News, our Resident Section Committee article by Dr. Jennifer Bunch presents her experience implementing the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist abroad.

In regional anesthesiology and pain medicine, one of the most dreaded complications besides nerve injury and local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is the wrong-site block.  The risk factors related to this medical error have been well-studied and include patient, physician, procedural, environmental, and system factors (1,2).  Despite the best intentions, wrong-site blocks have not gone away (3-5).  ASRA has been hard at work developing a standardized pre-procedure checklist for regional anesthesiology that has been published in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.  ASRA’s recommended checklist includes the following elements:  patient identification with assessment of pertinent medical history, separate verifications of the surgical procedure and block plan, confirmation that appropriate equipment and medications for the block procedure and resuscitation are immediately available, and a pre-procedural time-out.  Dr. Mulroy was charged with heading this task force and has been kind enough to summarize ASRA’s checklist project in this issue of ASRA News.

Time Out Cognitive Aid
Figure 1. Pre-Block Time Out Cognitive Aid

With the publication of this checklist, ASRA is once again taking a stand in support of patient safety.  The process of verifying the correct patient, correct site, and correct implants or devices for patients undergoing any invasive procedure, including peripheral nerve blockade, must be consistently and reliably applied for every patient.  Since there is no easy mnemonic to help providers remember every step, and the order in which they must occur, I suggest using a standardized cognitive aid for block procedures (Figure 1) that should be posted in a consistent location visible to all providers involved in the procedure and in every location in which these procedures will occur.  During the time-out process, it is essential that all team members involved in the patient’s procedure stop what they are doing and actively participate.

When I started my current job in 2010, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) had just issued Directive 2010-023, “Ensuring Correct Surgery and Invasive Procedures,” and this VHA Directive was considered inclusive of regional anesthesia procedures.  We have had a process similar to the ASRA checklist in place since then, and I acknowledge that implementing change is hard.  Yes, following a checklist requires extra steps.  Yes, it may even take more time.  The bottom line is – it takes a lot more time, effort, and expense to deal with the complications that may result if you don’t do this.  The ASRA checklist is not prescriptive and allows for local institutional interpretation and application.  If I routinely use a checklist when I pack my suitcase, I can’t think of any good reason not to use one for the safety of my patients.

References

  1. O’Neill T, Cherreau P, Bouaziz H.  Patient safety in regional anesthesia: preventing wrong-site peripheral nerve block.  J Clin Anesth. 2010 Feb;22(1):74-7.
  2. Cohen SP, Hayek SM, Datta S, Bajwa ZH, Larkin TM, Griffith S, Hobelmann G, Christo PJ, White R.  Incidence and root cause analysis of wrong-site pain management procedures: a multicenter study.  Anesthesiology. 2010 Mar;112(3):711-8.
  3. Edmonds CR, Liguori GA, Stanton MA.  Two cases of a wrong-site peripheral nerve block and a process to prevent this complication.  Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;30(1):99-103.
  4. Stanton MA, Tong-Ngork S, Liguori GA, Edmonds CR.  A new approach to preanesthetic site verification after 2 cases of wrong site peripheral nerve blocks.  Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2008 Mar-Apr;33(2):174-7.
  5. Al-Nasser B.  Unintentional side error for continuous sciatic nerve block at the popliteal fossa.  Acta Anaesthesiol Belg. 2011;62(4):213-5.

Related Posts:

Regional Anesthesia and Compartment Syndrome

Originally included in my editorial for the May 2013 issue of ASRA News.

ASRA News May 2013In the May 2013 issue of ASRA News, I want to highlight a special Pro-Con feature dedicated to the controversial topic of regional anesthesia and analgesia in the patient at risk for acute compartment syndrome.  I want to personally thank our surgical colleagues from the University of Alberta who were willing to write a thoughtful “Con” article for our newsletter.  Before jumping to debate each of their points, we need to give them careful consideration.  With the paucity of evidence-based recommendations on this topic, it is crucial to have an open honest dialogue between all members of the healthcare team.  This Pro-Con is not meant to provide answers but to provide talking points for an ongoing conversation.

In my previous position at UCSD, we had a Level 1 trauma center where we would keep one operating room (OR) set up and warm at all times for the occasional direct-to-OR resuscitation. We saw all types of acute and subacute orthopedic trauma, and no two cases were approached the same way. Did I consider regional analgesia for each of these patients? Yes.  Did I perform regional analgesia for all of them? No.

In order to have a meaningful discussion on this topic with our surgical colleagues, we must first be part of the conversation.  In the specialty of Regional Anesthesia and Acute Pain Medicine, this means emphasizing more the “Acute Pain Medicine” part than the “Regional Anesthesia” part.  The value that we bring to perioperative patient care must be more than just a set of interventional peripheral nerve and neuraxial block techniques.  We have to know when these techniques are and are not indicated and have other modalities for analgesia at our disposal when providing consultation on complicated trauma patients.  In addition, the service we provide cannot be time-limited.  How can we say that superior pain control is only available from 7 am to 5 pm not including weekends and holidays?

When it comes down to it, managing patients at risk for compartment syndrome is tough.  The benefits of analgesia have to be weighed with the potential for neurovascular compromise.  Sometimes you will perform regional analgesic techniques for them; other times you won’t.  Sometimes, you will place catheters that you can dose later when the risk profile improves; other times you may be consulted for help later in the hospital stay.  Sometimes you will convince the surgeon to preemptively perform fasciotomies in a patient in whom you anticipate a difficult postoperative course.  The context for this decision-making will vary from institution to institution, but ongoing communication with the surgical team is indispensible.  Be a consultant; be available; and continue to be part of the conversation.

Related Posts:

Global Humanitarian Aid and Medical Missions

Originally included in my editorial for the November 2013 issue of ASRA News.

ASRA News Nov 2013In November 2013 issue of ASRA News, we feature two very special articles that touch on the common theme of global humanitarian aid and volunteerism.  Our Resident Section Committee article by Dr. Anish Doshi provides us with an overview of the paucity of pain management and palliative care services in the developing world.  As a new column for ASRA News, the Member Spotlight, we present the amazing work of Dr. Randy Malchow and his team in bringing regional anesthesia and perioperative pain management services and education to Kijabe Hospital in Kenya.

I should say that the contents of this editorial/blog are my own opinions and do not necessarily represent the official views of ASRA.  The subject of medical volunteerism and global humanitarian aid is important to me, having personally participated in multiple medical missions to underserved communities in the Philippines and Ecuador over the last decade.  Many of our ASRA members have dedicated their time and resources to similar causes at home and abroad, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has its own Global Humanitarian Outreach (GHO) Program.  The statistics related to anesthesia and pain management in the developing world are quite shocking.  It is not uncommon for developing countries to have a ratio of less than 1 anesthesiologist for every 100,000 people!  In the realm of pain management and palliative care, the article by Dr. Doshi is particularly eye-opening and should serve as a strong motivator for our members to get involved in helping the underserved.  What is the best way to do that?

The GHO offers a search engine for ASA members to look up volunteer opportunities abroad.  Not everyone can take weeks or months off work to travel to far-away places.  I have been fortunate in that my wife and I have been able to volunteer together—that is, until recently when we started our latest adventure (parenting).  In addition, although not naturally a cynic, I find myself questioning the real difference certain medical mission groups make.  Even though the before and after photos look great, how much difference does it make to a community when a medical mission group swoops in, repairs some cleft lips, and leaves without every returning?  Yes, I understand the social stigma associated with congenital deformities; I have seen it firsthand.  However, I also know that there is a bigger picture to consider—patient education on nutrition, prenatal care, and health care maintenance; access to basic resources, including food, shelter, and transportation; and infrastructure improvements that are required to sustain change.  Furthermore, does this paternalism actually do damage to future relationships with local health officials and governments within the countries in need, especially when late complications arise after the medical mission groups are long gone?

When you read Dr. Malchow’s article, one of the most impressive features of this program is its sustainability.  Not only does this volunteer group provide medical and surgical services to patients in need—a critical part of its “mission” is education of local providers.  Under the direction of Dr. Mark Newton, the Vanderbilt International Anesthesia (VIA) program is engaged in an ongoing relationship with Kijabe Hospital; and by training future generations of local anesthesia providers, VIA is raising the quality and safety of anesthesia and pain management services for the entire region.  One of the most important messages in Dr. Malchow’s article is that you don’t have to fly to Kenya to make a difference.  VIA would not be able to accomplish its goals without the countless people who have donated medical supplies and money for equipment and shipping.

I have been very fortunate to have joined medical mission groups that generally return to the same communities year after year.  One of the most rewarding aspects of participating, in my experience, has been developing relationships—with team members, local physicians and nurses, students and residents, government officials, and patients and families.  Although we can congratulate ourselves on what we have accomplished so far, there is still so much work left to do.

Related Posts:

Physicians Specializing in the Patient Experience

This post has also been featured on KevinMD.com.

Imagine — where would elective surgery be today if patients still worried about operating rooms exploding or developing liver and kidney failure from anesthesia?

Having major surgery would be a very different experience without anesthesia.  Before the advent of safe anesthesia techniques, the world of surgery was basically limited to amputations and other attempts at life-saving maneuvers.  Dr. Bigelow’s publication describing the safe administration of ether changed everything, and the New England Journal of Medicine called this the most important article in its history.  With this article, the science and clinical practice of anesthesiology, as well as the modern era of surgery, were born.

How is “anesthesiology” different than “anesthesia?”  Anesthesiology is a science like biology or physiology and a field of medicine like cardiology or radiology.  Anesthesia, a word with Greek origin, means “without sensation.”  There are different types of practitioners who can administer anesthesia, but not all of them are anesthesiologists.  The heart of anesthesiology continues to be the patient experience.  As anesthesiologists, we are physicians who specialize in relieving anxiety, preventing and treating pain, preventing and managing complications related to surgery, and improving the outcomes for patients who undergo invasive procedures.  Not only are we clinicians who apply the best available evidence in our patient care practice; we are the physicians and scientists who develop the evidence.  The clinical practice of delivering anesthesia should not take place without the involvement of anesthesiologists.

Often referred to as “going to sleep,” general anesthesia itself is actually not that simple.  In fact, there is a lot of science behind the turning of dials that many patients and providers take for granted.  Anesthetic agents have not always been as safe as they are today, and anesthesiologists were responsible for conducting important research to retire some of the anesthetics that had the potential to cause patients harm.  Thanks to anesthesiologists, we have fast-acting and safe anesthetic gases that have facilitated the evolution of same-day outpatient procedures.

One study that has guided my practice was conducted by my residency advisor, Dr. Alex Macario.  His research team surveyed patients having elective surgery to ask them which adverse effects of anesthesia they wish to avoid most.  The answers are a little surprising.  Two of the top 4 items are nausea and vomiting, with vomiting being #1.  To improve the experience for patients undergoing anesthesia, anesthesiologists have studied medications that prevent nausea and vomiting after surgery and have established practice guidelines to share their recommendations with anesthesia providers and patients everywhere.

My own research has focused on developing safe pain management techniques for patients having surgery that decreases the need for narcotics.  Like other anesthesiologists before me, I have studied target-specific pain relief techniques using local anesthetic nerve blocks that allow patients to recover at home instead of staying in the hospital for pain control after surgery.  What does this mean for you as a patient?  It means sleeping better in your own bed in your own house instead of in the hospital.  It means using less narcotic pain medication and avoiding the side effects like nausea and constipation that come with it.  It means that family members who take care of you at home can do this more easily, and they need to take less time off work.  It means that you as a patient can recover more quickly and get back to doing the things you want to do.

I apply my research results and the results of other anesthesiologists’ research studies to my clinical practice every day.  I don’t pretend to have all the answers, and I am very wary of those who say they do.  Like many of my anesthesiology colleagues, I see potential research questions and opportunities to improve the surgical experience in daily patient care activities, and I am fortunate to work in an environment that supports investigation and inspires innovation.

I have been told that it is difficult sometimes to distinguish an anesthesiologist from other anesthesia providers by what we wear and how we look.  That may be true, but there is something special about how anesthesiologists think — how we perceive clinical information, analyze it, interpret it, and apply it — that patients need to know.

Anesthesiologists, working alone or in a care team model supervising other anesthesia providers, bring their expertise to the bedside to improve the patient experience.  There has been growing pressure recently to abandon the team model and remove the need for nurse anesthetist supervision.  Why are patients and surgeons being forced to choose between having a nurse anesthetist OR an anesthesiologist when they shouldn’t have to?  Given the choice, I think they will choose “AND.”

Related Posts:

Essentials of Regional Anesthesia Now Available

essentials-of-regional-anesthesiaThe textbook Essentials of Regional Anesthesia is now available from online booksellers. All of the chapters are written by Regional Anesthesia fellowship directors and fellows and cover various topics including regional anesthesia procedures and acute pain management for complex patients of all ages and various co-morbidities. This book is full of clinical pearls and also includes over 400 test questions based on the book’s content to assess your knowledge of the subject matter. My chapter, co-authored by my wife who has been educating nurses on regional anesthesia techniques and acute pain management for years, focuses on the practice management aspects of regional anesthesia and offers strategies to develop effective systems that emphasize teamwork with all providers involved in caring for the perioperative patient.

Related Posts: