Search

Background: Pain is the major determinant factor which affects the quality of recovery and postoperative agitation following nasal surgery with the patient under general anesthesia. Our objectives were to test the hypothesis that an external nasal nerve block will decrease pain intensity, decrease drug consumption, decrease the incidence of postoperative emergence agitation and improve quality of recovery.Material and Methods: In this study 100 adult patients who were scheduled for elective external nasal surgery with the patient under general anesthesia and nasal packing on each side, received external nasal nerve blocks postoperatively for 24 h with saline (group I) or 2% xylocaine (group II) with 1:200,000 epinephrine. Postoperative pain was measured at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) utilizing a visual analog scale (VAS). Narcotics consumption was also measured. Emergence agitation and quality of recovery were also assessed.Results: Pain scores were statistically significant between both groups. Requirements of equivalent morphine doses in the PACU were lower in group II (block) than group I (control) with a significant P value <0.001. Group II (block) patients required significantly less intraoperative fentanyl than group I (control) patients (p = 0.001). Group II (block) showed higher scores in pain dimension of QoR-40 in comparison with group I (P <0.001). The incidence of emergence agitation was lower in group II (block) than in group I (control, 24% vs. 48%, P = 0.012).Conclusion: External nasal nerve block is an effective technique for reducing postoperative pain, drug consumption and quality of recovery. It also reduces emergence agitation. The effects are mainly due to profound analgesia and effective pain control that lead to decreased drug usage and reduced discomfort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient handover from anaesthesia to postanaesthesia unit: An analysis of the current situation in three Swiss hospitals Abstract: Background: Patient handovers carry a risk of inadequate or missing communication of important information that can jeopardize patient safety. To increase patient safety, protocols for processes and contents of a structured patient handover were created. Aim: To assess the current status of patient handovers from anaesthesia staff to recovery room nurses. Method: After a literature search an observation protocol for patient handovers according to the SBAR concept (von Dossow & Zwißler, 2016) was developed. Using this checklist, non-participant observations were conducted in three Swiss hospitals and evaluated with statistical analysis. Results: A total of 98 observations were made. The report receiving person felt integrated into the handover and received the necessary information. Deficiencies in patient identification and a joint control of lines after surgical interventions could be identified. The subjectively rated quality of patient handover did not differ between the three hospitals (X 2 (2)=,927, p =,629) and also not according to the time of day (X 2 (2)=3,604, p =,216). There was also no difference between the subjective quality of the handover and the delivering professional group (X 2 (3)=4,507, p =,212). Conclusions: The subjective quality of patient handover did not differ between the three hospitals. However, the patient handover protocols need to be adapted to ensure that patient identification and a joint assessment including control of lines and drains are performed.

Allowances have been made for surveillance as an essential component in the chain of anesthesiological care and the increasing importance of the recovery room by reformulation of the recommendations of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care medicine (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, DGAI) and the Professional Association of German Anesthetists (Berufsverband Deutscher Anästhesisten, BDA) on surveillance following anesthesia procedures. These recommendations replace the previous guidelines on postoperative surveillance and the recommendations on organization and equipping of recovery units. In the following article the essential new aspects of the recommendations on surveillance following anesthesia procedures will be presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In November 2005 a complex, multimodal anesthesia fast-track protocol (FTP) was introduced for elective cardiac surgery patients in the Cardiac Center of the University of Leipzig which included changing from an opioid regime to remifentanil and postoperative treatment in a special post-anesthesia recovery and care unit. The goal was to speed up recovery times while maintaining safety and improving costs. A total of 421 patients who underwent the FTP and were treated in the special recovery room were analyzed retrospectively. These patients were compared with patients who had been treated by a standard protocol (SP) prior to instituting the FTP. Primary outcomes were time to extubation, length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and treatment costs. The times to extubation were significantly shorter in the FTP group with 75 min (range 45–110 min) compared to 900 min (range 600–1140 min) in the SP group. Intensive care unit stay and hospital length of stay were also significantly shorter in the FTP group (p<0.01). The reduction of treatment costs of intensive care for FTP patients was 53.5% corresponding to savings of EUR 738 per patient in the FTP group compared with the SP group. The Leipzig fast-track protocol for cardio-anesthesia including the central elements of switching opiate therapy to remifentanil and switching patient recovery to a special post-anesthesia recovery and care unit, shortened therapy times, is safe and economically effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)