Body mass index: risk predictor for cosmetic day surgery.

Body mass index (BMI; weight per unit surface area) is the scientific yardstick by which overweight is gauged relative to the population norm. The contrary association between obesity and diabetes or hypertension is only too well known. Less appreciated is the heightened sensitivity to respiratory depressants such as sedatives and analgesics in the obese (BMI >/= 30) and the increased incidence of sleep apnea in the morbidly obese (BMI >/= 35)-either or both of which raise the risk of cosmetic surgery when sedation or anesthesia is contemplated. Guided by the BMI, a gender-independent measure of fatness, the surgeon now can inform the patient of her or his relative operative risk and offer an objective rationale for advising overnight hospitalization rather than office-based day surgery. The BMI is readily calculated when height and weight are expressed in metric units, much less so when measured in foot-pound units. In fact, the calculations are sufficiently cumbersome that the BMI remains underused in U.S. office surgery. The author's complimentary "BMI Calculator"-an Excel workbook available on-line to society members-is designed so that office staff need enter only height (in feet and inches) and weight (in pounds) to print the BMI for the patient's permanent record. The BMI places patient weight relative to height in proper perspective for aesthetic surgery, whether with sedation or under general anesthesia. The BMI ought to be as routine a part of the preoperative assessment as blood pressure or hemoglobin content.

Lipoplasty claims experience of U.S. insurance companies.

An analysis of medical liability claims for lipoplasty (liposuction) from January of 1985 through June of 1998 compared the insurance industry experience of plastic surgeons with that of other physicians. The Data Sharing Project database of the Physician Insurers Association of America, a trade association of professional liability companies owned and operated by medical professionals that collectively insure approximately 60 percent of America's private practice physicians, was queried. Of the nearly 45,000 total entries in the database, 292 were claims for adverse events related to lipoplasty or liposuction. These raw data were stratified by physician specialty, severity of complication, practice location, patient gender, indemnity payment, and other insurance industry-relevant variables. To simplify interspecialty comparisons, we normalized the claims rate to incidents per 100 insured physicians. The indexed lipoplasty claims rate was 3.0 per 100 insured plastic surgeons and 4.1 for other surgeons; the indexed lipoplasty claims rate for nonsurgical specialists was 2.5 per 100 insured dermatologists and 2.3 for other nonsurgeons. The higher claims rate for surgeons most likely reflects the wider scope of full-service aesthetic surgery performed by surgical specialists. Nearly two-thirds of claims (65.4 percent) during the 13-year survey period were the result of hospital-based lipoplasty; 20.9 percent were office-based claims. The prevalence of hospital-based claims may be a consequence of both historical bias introduced by hospital-based specialty surgery in the early years and prudent patient safety considerations during performance of complex or prolonged procedures in more recent years.Two-thirds of the claims (67 percent) arose from informed-consent or breach-of-contract issues, far higher than the 26 percent aggregate claims norm. The mean indemnity payment was $94,534 per lipoplasty claim; claims paid against board-certified specialists averaged $83,350. Consistent with national lipoplasty demographics, 87 percent of claims were brought by women and 13 percent were brought by men. Seven fatalities (three women and four men) were noted; cause of death is not recorded in this type of database.

Perioperative management of cosmetic liposuction.

Recent qualms about the safety of aesthetic lipoplasty may be attributable more to support system flaws than to technical process deficiencies. The authors here focus on perfunctory patient monitoring when sedative or analgesic drugs are given, cavalier infiltration of mega-dose lidocaine, cursory intraoperative patient observation by team members with conflicting responsibilities, anesthesia providers unfamiliar with the unique surgical physiology of liposuction, hurried-discharge policies that virtually ignore the residual depressant effects of sedatives and analgesics, and compressive dressings that impair postoperative chest-wall expansion and venous return. Whereas pulmonary embolism remains the leading process cause of morbidity from liposuction, complications from austere resource allocation to dedicated patient monitoring should be largely preventable. Not all lipoplasties require an anesthesia provider but-when heavy sedation, mega-dose lidocaine, or both, are projected-a trained team member dedicated exclusively to patient safety and comfort should be a minimum patient care standard. The potential role of lidocaine cardiotoxicity in tumescent anesthesia is widely underappreciated and that of hypothermia goes mostly unrecognized. These, plus largely preventable or potentially correctable perioperative events such as pulmonary edema, fluid imbalance, or improperly administered sedative and analgesic drugs, demand upgrading and expansion of monitoring, resuscitative, and recuperative facilities in physician offices. In fact, ASPS guidelines urge that anesthesia services be engaged for dedicated patient care whenever "major" liposuction or conscious sedation is projected, because liposuction is neither as benign nor as simple a procedure as heretofore reputed. To assess objectively the operative and anesthetic risk of obesity, document body mass index for the preoperative record; morbid obesity (body mass index >/= 35.0), for instance, is a known risk multiplier for sedatives and analgesics. Other system issues such as the dynamic profile of high-dose lidocaine pharmacokinetics, the deportation of fat globules in the bloodstream, and the incidence of intraoperative hypothermia remain as unresolved topics for interdisciplinary, multi-institutional clinical research.

Fatal outcomes from liposuction: census survey of cosmetic surgeons.

Troubling reports of adverse outcomes after liposuction prompted a census survey of aesthetic plastic surgeons. All 1200 actively practicing North American board-certified ASAPS members were polled by facsimile, then mail, regarding deaths after liposuction. Patient initials together with case summaries precluded data replication yet assured patient anonymity and preserved surgeon privacy. Incomplete returns or ambiguous findings were authenticated, where feasible, by direct follow-up. Total number of lipoplasties performed by plastic surgeons was interpolated from the ASPRS procedure database for the survey time frame of 1994 to mid-1998. Lacking reliable annual case volume estimates, deaths from lipoplasties performed by non-ABPS surgeons were excluded from the actual mortality rate computation but were included in cause-of-death ranking statistics. Responding aesthetic plastic surgeons (917 of 1200) reported 95 uniquely authenticated fatalities in 496,245 lipoplasties. In this census survey, the mortality rate computed to 1 in 5224, or 19.1 per 100,000. A virtually identical 20.3 per 100,000 mortality rate was obtained in a 1997 random survey commissioned by the parent society. Pulmonary thromboembolism remains as the major killer (23.4+/-2.6 percent); lacking consistent medical examiners' toxicology data, the putative role of high-dose lidocaine cardiotoxicity could not be ascertained. Where so stated, many deaths occurred during the first night after discharge home; prudence suggests vigilant observation for residual "hangover" from sedative/anesthetic drugs after lengthy procedures. Taken together, these two independent surveys peg the late 1990s mortality rate from liposuction at about 20 per 100,000, or 1 in every 5000 procedures. Set beside the 16.4 per 100,000 fatality rates of U.S. motor vehicle accidents, liposuction is not an altogether benign procedure. We do not have comparable mortality data for lipoplasties performed by non-ABPS-certified physicians.

1995 Gaston Labat Lecture. Ropivacaine. White knight or dark horse?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Ropivacaine, a new local anesthetic now under Federal Drug Administration review for clinical release, is a unique drug designed to take advantage of cardiac sodium channel stereoselectivity. The Labat lecture, honoring the father of regional anesthesia, pays tribute to the master by tracing the evolution of knowledge transfer from basic science frontiers to safer clinical practice. METHODS: A survey was made of pertinent English-language literature on stereoselectivity of bupivacaine isomers and the evaluation and validation of ropivacaine, including a stereoisomerism primer for the nonscientist. RESULTS: A synopsis of current basic and (pre)clinical findings, preparing North American clinicians for the imminent introduction of ropivacaine, is presented, along with predictions for potential clinical application. CONCLUSIONS: Bupivacaine cardiotoxicity results from prolonged sodium channel dwell time of the R(ectus), as compared with the S(inister), stereoisomer. Bupivacaine, like most aminoamide local anesthetics (except lidocaine), has a chiral (asymmetric) carbon atom where the amide linkage joins the hydrophilic tail. Chirality yields two steric forms (S and R) which are spatial mirror images (like the left hand trapped in a right glove) with different receptor kinetics; commercial bupivacaine is the optically inactive racemic (RS) mixture of R- and S-bupivacaine. Ropivacaine is unique in that membrane separation synthesis exclusively yields the S-monomer, which is a local anesthetic with lower cardiotoxic potential than racemic bupivacaine. Its immediate clinical application would be in obstetric analgesia, whereas its shorter duration of action and weaker motor block should make it useful in ambulatory anesthesia.

Backfire: AHCPR practice guideline for acute low back pain.

The AHCPR "Guideline for Acute Low Back Problems in Adults" is a must-read for every South Carolina physician treating low back pain. The 25-page pamphlet excels as a practical guide for swiftly triaging acute low back problems into the 90 percent majority who recover within a month, from the few "red flag" and "red herring" serious back problems requiring urgent attention. But the Guideline panel overstepped its policymaking mandate by venturing into the quicksand of treatment by committee edict, rather than by on-the-spot caretakers. The rumbling backfire is that U. S. Government document, intended as practice guideline for routine acute back care, will come to haunt us as a practice standard for all back care. One-size-fits-all proposals for the majority short-change the few with more demanding healthcare resource requirements. Be sure to read the pamphlet; your patients, insurers, providers, administrators, journalists and attorneys will!