Search

Background: Hypnosis can be a beneficial complementary anesthesia technique for a variety of surgical procedures. Despite favorable scientific evidence, hypnosis is still rarely used in the operating room. Obstacles to implementation could be a lack of interest or training, misconceptions, as well as limited knowledge amongst anesthesiology teams. Hence, this study aimed to assess the interest, training, beliefs, and knowledge about hypnosis in the operating room staff., Design: A questionnaire with 21-items, based on a prior survey, was set up on an online platform. The medical and nursing anesthesiology staff of four Swiss academic and large regional hospitals (N = 754) were invited to participate anonymously through e-mails sent by their hierarchy. Results were analyzed quantitatively., Results: Between June, 2020 and August, 2021 353 answers were collected (47% response rate). Most (92%) were aware that hypnosis needs specific training, with 14% trained. A large majority of the untrained staff wished to enroll for conversational hypnosis training. There was a strong agreement for hypnosis playing a role in anesthesia. Nevertheless, many of these professionals believed that hypnosis has a limited field of action (53%) or that it would be too time consuming (33%). The reduction of misconceptions was based more on exposure to hypnosis than on training., Conclusion: Overall, anesthesia providers' attitude was in favor of using hypnosis in the operating room. Misconceptions such as a prolongation of the procedure, alteration of consent, lack of acceptability for patients, and limited indications were identified as potential barriers. These deserve to be challenged through proper dissemination of the recent scientific literature and exposure to practice., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Methods: In this study we investigated the anesthesiological module of a clinical pathway. We chose the pathway of "laparoscopic prostatectomy" as an example for time-consuming minimally invasive surgery and 40 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups receiving either total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using propofol/ remifentanil or balanced minimal flow anesthesia using desflurane/ remifentanil. During this module the indicators of quality such as vigilance, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and mobilization were measured. Costs were evaluated and analyzed by a bottom-up procedure., Results: There were no anesthesia-related deviations from clinical pathways and both forms of anesthesia management were equally well tolerated by the patients. No significant difference was observed regarding hemodynamic measurements or PONV. The patients in the desflurane/ remifentanil group recovered more rapidly (p=0.037) and had more pain. The amount of analgesic agents given immediately following anesthesia was significantly higher than in the TIVA group (p=0.017). The median anesthesia costs per minute for laparoscopic prostatectomy in the propofol group were 2.79 EUR (minimum cost 2.41 EUR, maximum cost 3.21 EUR) and in the desflurane group 2.68 EUR (minimum cost 2.45 EUR, maximum cost 3.39 EUR). The total anesthesia costs for both groups were within the proceeds matrix range for diagnosis-related groups (DRG). However, the cost analysis for medication was slightly higher than the proceeds matrix range for DRGs., Conclusion: Both forms of anesthesia can be implemented for time-consuming surgical procedures and allow a cost-effective anesthesia management. Anesthesiological procedures must go hand-in-hand with the type of anesthesia selected. The prophylactic use of analgetics for desflurane/ remifentanil anesthesia should be given earlier and in higher doses than in propofol/ remifentanil anesthesia. The prophylactic use of antiemetics following laparoscopic procedures of long duration is indicated. Optimizing anesthesiological procedures could lead to a continuous improvement in the quality of therapeutic pathways.

Methods: In this study we investigated the anesthesiological module of a clinical pathway. We chose the pathway of "laparoscopic prostatectomy" as an example for time-consuming minimally invasive surgery and 40 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups receiving either total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) using propofol/ remifentanil or balanced minimal flow anesthesia using desflurane/ remifentanil. During this module the indicators of quality such as vigilance, pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and mobilization were measured. Costs were evaluated and analyzed by a bottom-up procedure.Results: There were no anesthesia-related deviations from clinical pathways and both forms of anesthesia management were equally well tolerated by the patients. No significant difference was observed regarding hemodynamic measurements or PONV. The patients in the desflurane/ remifentanil group recovered more rapidly (p=0.037) and had more pain. The amount of analgesic agents given immediately following anesthesia was significantly higher than in the TIVA group (p=0.017). The median anesthesia costs per minute for laparoscopic prostatectomy in the propofol group were 2.79 EUR (minimum cost 2.41 EUR, maximum cost 3.21 EUR) and in the desflurane group 2.68 EUR (minimum cost 2.45 EUR, maximum cost 3.39 EUR). The total anesthesia costs for both groups were within the proceeds matrix range for diagnosis-related groups (DRG). However, the cost analysis for medication was slightly higher than the proceeds matrix range for DRGs.Conclusion: Both forms of anesthesia can be implemented for time-consuming surgical procedures and allow a cost-effective anesthesia management. Anesthesiological procedures must go hand-in-hand with the type of anesthesia selected. The prophylactic use of analgetics for desflurane/ remifentanil anesthesia should be given earlier and in higher doses than in propofol/ remifentanil anesthesia. The prophylactic use of antiemetics following laparoscopic procedures of long duration is indicated. Optimizing anesthesiological procedures could lead to a continuous improvement in the quality of therapeutic pathways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]