Does the Case Volume Experience of the Anesthesiologist Influence the Intraoperative Efficiency at All?

This editorial discusses the recent study conducted by Macias et al., revealing that anesthesiologists' case volume history has only a marginal impact on improving operating room efficiency, resulting in minimal clinical significance. The idea that a specific anesthesia team or type of anesthesia could enhance productivity has been previously investigated, yielding similar conclusions. Although the study primarily focuses on the time from patient arrival to the completion of anesthesia induction, excluding the latter part of anesthesia-controlled time, Macias et al. have made a valuable contribution by challenging the prevalent notion that less experienced anesthesiologists adversely affect operating room efficiency.

Anesthesia for the Patient Undergoing Shoulder Surgery.

Shoulder surgery introduces important anesthesia considerations. The interscalene nerve block is considered the gold standard regional anesthetic technique and can serve as the primary anesthetic or can be used for postoperative analgesia. Phrenic nerve blockade is a limitation of the interscalene block and various phrenic-sparing strategies and techniques have been described. Patient positioning is another important anesthetic consideration and can be associated with significant hemodynamic effects and position-related injuries.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols in Live Kidney Donors: ERASKT Study.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways represent a comprehensive approach to optimizing perioperative management and reducing hospital stay and cost. In living donor kidney transplantation, key impediments to postoperative discharge include pain, and opioid associated complications such as nausea, vomiting, and the return of gastrointestinal function. Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, living kidney transplantation donors were assigned to either the ERAS or control group. The ERAS group patients received 15 preoperative, 17 intraoperative, 19 postoperative element intervention. The control group received standard care. The ERAS group received a multimodal opioid sparing pain management including an intraoperative transverse abdominis plane block. Our primary outcome measure was postoperative opioid consumption. The secondary outcome measures were postoperative pain scores, first oral intake, and hospital length of stay. Results: There were no significant differences in demographics between the 2 groups. The ERAS group had a statistically significant reduction in total postoperative opioid consumption calculated in intravenous morphine equivalents (24.2 ±â€…20.2 versus 71 ±â€…39.5 mg, P < 0.01). Postoperative pain scores were significantly lower (P < 0.001) from 1 h postoperatively to 48 h. Surgical time was 45 min shorter (P = 0.037). Intraoperative PlasmaLyte administration was lower (PlasmaLyte: 1444 ±â€…907 versus 2168 ±â€…1347 mL, P = 0.049). Time to tolerating regular diet was shorter by 2 h (P < 0.008), and length of hospital stay was decreased by 10.1 h. Conclusions: The ERAS group experienced superior postoperative analgesia and a shorter length of hospital stay compared with controls.

Intravenous versus oral acetaminophen for pain and quality of recovery after ambulatory spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: As ambulatory spine surgery increases, efficient recovery and discharge become essential. Multimodal analgesia is superior to opioids alone. Acetaminophen is a central component of multimodal protocols and both intravenous and oral forms are used. While some advantages for intravenous acetaminophen have been touted, prospective studies with patient-centered outcomes are lacking in ambulatory spine surgery. A substantial cost difference exists. We hypothesized that intravenous acetaminophen would be associated with fewer opioids and better recovery. METHODS: Patients undergoing ambulatory spine surgery were randomized to preoperative oral placebo and intraoperative intravenous acetaminophen or preoperative oral acetaminophen. All patients received general anesthesia and multimodal analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour opioid use in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs), beginning with arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Secondary outcomes included pain, Quality of Recovery (QoR)-15 scores, postoperative nausea and vomiting, recovery time, and correlations between pain catastrophizing, QoR-15, and pain. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in final analyses. Demographics were similar between groups. For the primary outcome, the median 24-hour MMEs did not differ between groups (12.6 (4.0, 27.1) vs 12.0 (4.0, 29.5) mg, p=0.893). Postoperative pain ratings, PACU MMEs, QoR-15 scores, and recovery time showed no differences. Spearman's correlation showed a moderate negative correlation between postoperative opioid use and QoR-15. CONCLUSION: Intravenous acetaminophen was not superior to the oral form in ambulatory spine surgery patients. This does not support routine use of the more expensive intravenous form to improve recovery and accelerate discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04574778.