Optimizing Robotic Hysterectomy for the Patient Who Is Morbidly Obese with a Surgical Safety Pathway.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Obesity is a growing worldwide epidemic, and patients classified as obese undergoing gynecologic robotic surgery are at increased risk for surgical complications. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of a surgical safety protocol known as the High BMI [Body Mass Index] Pathway (HBP) for patients with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 undergoing planned robotic hysterectomy. Our primary outcome was the rate of all-cause perioperative complications in patients undergoing surgery with the use of the HBP. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: An academic teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 138 patients classified as morbidly obese (BMI ≥40 kg/m2) undergoing robotic hysterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: The HBP was developed by a multidisciplinary team and was instituted on January 1, 2016, as a quality improvement project. Patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing robotic hysterectomy after this date were compared with consecutive historical controls. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent robotic hysterectomies on the HBP and were compared with 66 controls. There were no differences in age, BMI, blood loss, number of comorbidities, or cancer diagnosis. Since the implementation of the HBP, there has been a decrease in anesthesia time (-57.0 minutes; p = .001) and total operating room time (-47.0 min; p = .020), as well as lower estimated blood loss (median 150 mL [interquartile range 100-200] vs 200 mL [interquartile range 100-300]; p = .002) and reduction in overnight hospital admissions (33.3% vs 63.6%; p <.001). In the HBP group, there were fewer all-cause complications (19.4% vs 37.9%; p = .023) and infectious complications (8.3% vs 33.3%; p = .001), and there was no increase in the readmission rates (p = .400). In multivariable analysis, the HBP reduced all-cause complications (odds ratio 0.353; p = .010) after controlling for the covariate (total time in the operating room). CONCLUSION: The HBP is a feasible method of optimizing the outcome for patients classified as morbidly obese undergoing major gynecologic surgery. Initiation of the HBP can lead to decreased anesthesia and operating times, all-cause complications, and overnight hospital admissions without increasing readmission rates.

Preoperative Evaluation Clinic Visit Is Associated with Decreased Risk of In-hospital Postoperative Mortality.

BACKGROUND: As specialists in perioperative medicine, anesthesiologists are well equipped to design and oversee the preoperative patient preparation process; however, the impact of an anesthesiologist-led preoperative evaluation clinic (PEC) on clinical outcomes has yet to be fully elucidated. The authors compared the incidence of in-hospital postoperative mortality in patients who had been evaluated in their institution's PEC before elective surgery to the incidence in patients who had elective surgery without being seen in the PEC. METHODS: A retrospective review of an administrative database was performed. There were 46 deaths from 64,418 patients (0.07%): 22 from 35,535 patients (0.06%) seen in PEC and 24 from 28,883 patients (0.08%) not seen in PEC. After propensity score matching, there were 13,964 patients within each matched set; there were 34 deaths (0.1%). There were 11 deaths from 13,964 (0.08%) patients seen in PEC and 23 deaths from 13,964 (0.16%) patients not seen in PEC. A subanalysis to assess the effect of a PEC visit on deaths as a result of failure to rescue (FTR) was also performed. RESULTS: A visit to PEC was associated with a reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.96, P = 0.04) by comparison of the matched cohorts. The FTR subanalysis suggested that the proportion of deaths attributable to an unanticipated surgical complication was not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.141). CONCLUSIONS: An in-person assessment at the PEC was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality. It was difficult to draw conclusions about whether a difference exists in the proportion of FTR deaths between the two cohorts due to small sample size.

Anesthetic Considerations in Facial Transplantation: Experience at NYU Langone Health and Systematic Review.

Anesthetic considerations are integral to the success of facial transplantation (FT), yet limited evidence exists to guide quality improvement. This study presents an institutional anesthesia protocol, defines reported anesthetic considerations, and provides a comprehensive update to inform future directions of the field. METHODS: An institutional "FT Anesthesia Protocol" was developed and applied to 2 face transplants. A systematic review of 3 databases captured FTs in the peer-reviewed literature up to February 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to include all clinical articles with FT recipient and/or donor-specific preoperative, intraoperative, and relevant postoperative anesthetic variables. Data charting guided a narrative synthesis, and quantitative synthesis reported variables as median (range). RESULTS: Our institutional experience emphasizes the importance of on-site rehearsals, anticipation of patient-specific anesthetic and resuscitative requirements, and long-term pain management. Systematic search identified 1092 unique records, and 129 met inclusion criteria. Reports of 37 FTs in the literature informed the following anesthetic axes: donor pre- and intraoperative management during facial allograft procurement, recipient perioperative care, immunotherapy, antimicrobial prophylaxis, and pain management. Quantitative synthesis of 30 articles showed a median operative time of 18 hours (range, 9-28) and fluid replacement with 13 L (5-18) of crystalloids, 13 units (0-66) of packed red blood cells, 10 units (0-63) of fresh frozen plasma, and 1 unit (0-9) of platelets. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthetic considerations in FT span the continuum of care. Future efforts should guide standard reporting to establish evidence-based strategies that promote quality improvement and patient safety.

Efficacy of popliteal block in postoperative pain control after ankle fracture fixation: a prospective randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare postoperative pain control in patients treated surgically for ankle fractures who receive popliteal blocks with those who received general anesthesia alone. DESIGN: Institutional Review Board approved prospective randomized study. SETTING: Metropolitan tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: All patients being treated with open reduction internal fixation for ankle fractures who met inclusion criteria and consented to participate were enrolled. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either general anesthesia (GETA) or intravenous sedation and popliteal block. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients were assessed for duration of procedure, total time in the operating room, and postoperative pain at 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours after surgery using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients agreed to participate in the study. Twenty-five patients received popliteal block, while 26 patients received GETA. There were no anesthesia-related complications. At 2, 4, and 8 hours postoperatively, patients who underwent GETA demonstrated significantly higher pain. At 12 hours, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with regard to pain control. However, by 24 hours, those who had received popliteal blocks had significantly higher pain with no difference by 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Popliteal block provides equivalent postoperative pain control to general anesthesia alone in patients undergoing operative fixation of ankle fractures. However, patients who receive popliteal blocks do experience a significant increase in pain between 12 and 24 hours. Recognition of this "rebound pain" with early narcotic administration may allow patients to have more effective postoperative pain control.