A “swing room” model based on regional anesthesia reduces turnover time and increases case throughput

Larger anesthesia practitioner per operating room ratios are needed to prevent unnecessary non-operative time than to mitigate patient risk: A narrative review

When choosing the anesthesia practitioner to operating room (OR) ratio for a hospital, objectives are applied to mitigate patient risk: 1) ensuring sufficient anesthesiologists to meet requirements for presence during critical intraoperative events (e.g., anesthesia induction) and 2) ensuring sufficient numbers to cover emergencies outside the ORs (e.g., emergent reintubation in the post-anesthesia care unit). At a 24-OR suite with each anesthesiologist supervising residents in 2 ORs, because critical events overlapped among ORs, ≥14 anesthesiologists were needed to be present for all critical events on >90% of days. The suitable anesthesia practitioner to OR ratio would be 1.58, where 1.58 = (24 + 14)/24. Our narrative review of 22 studies from 17 distinct hospitals shows that the practitioner to OR ratio needed to reduce non-operative time is reliably even larger. Activities to reduce non-operative times include performing preoperative evaluations, making prompt evidence-based decisions at the OR control desk, giving breaks during cases (e.g., lunch or lactation sessions), and using induction and block rooms in parallel to OR cases. The reviewed articles counted the frequency of these activities, finding them much more common than urgent patient-care events. Our review shows, also, that 1 anesthesiologist per OR, working without assistants, is often more expensive, from a societal perspective, than having a few more anesthesia practitioners (i.e., ratio > 1.00). These results are generalizable among hundreds of hospitals, based on managerial epidemiology studies. The implication of our narrative review is that existing studies have already shown, functionally, that artificial intelligence and monitoring technologies based on increasing the safety of intraoperative care have little to no potential to influence anesthesia or OR productivity. There are, in contrast, opportunities to use sensor data and decision-support to facilitate communication among anesthesiologists outside of ORs to choose optimal task sequences that reduce non-operative times, thereby increasing production and OR efficiency.

The impact of verbal goal setting on operating room turnover time: a randomized trial

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Operating room turnover times are highly variable, with longer times having a significant negative impact on hospital costs, surgeon volume, and satisfaction. The primary aim of this randomized trial was to examine the impact of a verbalized time goal on the likelihood of meeting institutional goals.

METHODS

This is a prospective, single-blind, randomized study conducted across four operative sites: inpatient main campus and three outpatient centers. Sequential cases for the same surgeon in the same room were randomized to receive a verbal prompt versus usual care, in which no goal setting was verbalized. Multivariate and univariate statistical analyses were performed.

RESULTS

From July through October 2022, five attending surgeons randomized 88 cases (44 verbal prompt, 44 usual care). Of these, 30 were at the main inpatient hospital. The case mixture included 36% vaginal, 27% endoscopy, 8% open, 10% robotic, and others. Average turnover time was 51.7 and 35.3 min for inpatient and outpatient cases respectively. Overall, only 39.8% of cases hit the institutional turnover time goal. Verbal prompting did not significantly increase the likelihood of achieving the institutional goal (38.4% vs 43.4% p = 0.352) except for in minor surgery (64.0 vs 39.0%, p = 0.0477). A verbal prompt reduced turnover time in major surgery (59.7 vs 47.8 min, p = 0.0445).

CONCLUSION

Our academic center achieved goal turnover times in only 39.8% of cases. Although verbal prompting did not significantly improve the likelihood of meeting institutional goals in the group as a whole, some subgroups were significantly improved.

Patient-Reported Quality of Recovery after Local Anesthesia versus Brachial Plexus Block in Hand Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Both local anesthesia (LA) and brachial plexus (BP) anesthesia are commonly used in hand surgery. LA has increased efficiency and reduced costs, but BP is often favored for more complex hand surgery, despite requiring greater time and resources. The primary objective of this study was to assess the quality of recovery of patients who received LA or BP block for hand surgery. Secondary objectives were to compare postoperative pain and opioid use.

METHODS

This randomized, controlled, noninferiority study enrolled patients undergoing surgery distal to the carpal bones. Patients were randomized to either LA (wrist or digital block) or BP block (infraclavicular block) before surgery. Patients completed the Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire on postoperative day (POD) 1. Pain level was assessed with a numeric pain rating scale, and narcotic consumption was recorded on POD1 and POD3.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients completed the study (LA, n = 46, BP, n = 30). No statistically significant difference was found for median Quality of Recovery-15 score between LA [127.5 (interquartile range, 28)] and BP block [123.5 (interquartile range, 31)]. The inferiority margin of LA to BP block at the 95% confidence interval was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 8, demonstrating noninferiority of LA compared with BP block. There was no statistically significant difference between LA and BP block for numeric pain rating scale scores or narcotic consumption on POD1 and POD3 ( P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LA is noninferior to BP block for hand surgery with regard to patient-reported quality of recovery, postoperative pain, and narcotic use.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.

Operative room time comparison between general and spinal anesthesia in total hip arthroplasty: an institutional study

PURPOSE

A relatively high expense with any procedure is total operative time; two components being the time spent anesthetizing the patient and time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room (OR). Both times can be affected by the anesthetic method used. This study compares different operative time intervals for both spinal anesthesia (SA) and general anesthesia (GA), in patients undergoing a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), to identify the most appropriate and cost-effective anesthetic method.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed at a single institution for primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed in the year 2019. Primary THAs without complications performed by three orthopedic surgeons were selected. Anesthesia records for 200 patients were used to compare perioperative time intervals; 100 consecutive patients that received SA and 100 consecutive patients that received GA.

RESULTS

The time spent transferring the patient out of the operating room was 8 min for GA and 5 min for SA (p < 0.001). Total operative time for GA was 90 min and 87 min for SA (p = 0.3330). Total pre-operative time averaged 26 min in SA compared to 25 min in GA (p = 0.5874). Non-operative total time (all time components of patient interaction excluding surgery start to surgery finish) was significantly shorter in SA with an average of 52 compared to 56 in GA (p = 0.0151).

CONCLUSION

Time to transfer patient out of the OR and total non-operative time was significantly shorter in patients who received spinal anesthesia. These results and the complications of both general and spinal anesthesia should be taken into consideration when anesthetizing patients undergoing primary THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Regional anaesthesia: what surgical procedures, what blocks and availability of a “block room”?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With an expected rise in day care procedures with enhanced recovery programs, the use of specific regional anaesthesia can be useful. In this review, we will provide insight in the used regional block and medication so far known and its applicability in a day care setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Regional anaesthesia has been improved with the aid of ultrasound-guided placement. However, it is not commonly used in the outpatient setting. Old, short acting local anaesthetics have found a second life and may be especially beneficial in the ambulatory setting replacing more long-acting local anaesthetics such as bupivacaine.To improve efficiency, a dedicated block room may facilitate the performance of regional anaesthesia. However, cost-efficacy for improved operating time, patient care and hospital efficiency has to be established.

SUMMARY

Regional anaesthesia has proven to be beneficial in ambulatory setting. Several short acting local anaesthetics are favourable over bupivacaine in the day care surgery. And if available, there are reports of the benefit of an additional block room used in a parallel (monitored) care of patients.

Impact of WALANT Hand Surgery in a Secondary Care Hospital in Spain. Benefits to the Patient and the Health System

Purpose

The aim of this study is to compare patient benefits and economic costs of hand surgeries using the wide-awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) technique versus a conventional major outpatient suite and review outcomes and complications in a series of cases of patients operated on using the WALANT technique.

Methods

A prospective cohort study was first conducted comparing 150 cases of ambulatory hand surgery (carpal tunnel syndrome and trigger finger) using the WALANT technique and not requiring an operating room setting with 150 cases of outpatient surgery performed in an operating room involving a preoperative evaluation and the use of sedation and tourniquet. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative pain was monitored, and days requiring postoperative analgesia were recorded. The resources and costs were evaluated. and patient satisfaction was assessed using a specific survey.Subsequently, 580 patient medical records were retrospectively reviewed, including 419 carpal tunnel syndrome and 197 trigger finger interventions (616 WALANT surgeries).

Results

Intraoperative pain was equivalent for both groups, and postoperative pain was significantly lower in the WALANT group, with a reduced need for analgesics. Satisfaction was greater for the local anesthesia group. The use of personnel resources and hospital materials was reduced in the WALANT group, with a total estimated cost savings of 1.019 USD per patient.There were no complications related to the WALANT technique and the lidocaine and adrenaline combination. We found a complication rate of 5.58%, and, in line with the literature, most complications were minor, managed conservatively, and not related to the anesthetic technique.

Conclusions

Procedures such as carpal tunnel and trigger finger surgeries can be safely performed using wide-awake surgery. Patient satisfaction is higher than with the conventional procedure performed in the operating room. Pain control is excellent, especially during the postoperative period.

Clinical relevance

Hand surgery patients benefit from the WALANT technique in terms of comfort and timeliness because there is no need for preoperative tests or evaluations. In addition, it represents significant savings in hospital resources. In our case series, complications were in line with those previously reported with other anesthetic techniques.

Cost comparison between spinal versus general anesthesia for hip and knee arthroplasty: an incremental cost study

PURPOSE

Wait list times for total joint arthroplasties have been growing, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Increasing operating room (OR) efficiency by reducing OR time and associated costs while maintaining quality allows the greatest number of patients to receive care.

METHODS

We used propensity score matching to compare parallel processing with spinal anesthesia in a block room vs general anesthesia in a retrospective cohort of adult patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We compared perioperative costs, hospital costs, OR time intervals, and complications between the groups with nonparametric tests using an intention-to-treat approach.

RESULTS

After matching, we included 636 patients (315 TKA; 321 THA). Median [interquartile range (IQR)] perioperative costs were CAD 7,417 [6,521-8,109], and hospital costs were CAD 10,293 [9,344-11,304]. Perioperative costs were not significantly different between groups (pseudo-median difference [MD], CAD -47 (95% confidence interval [CI], -214 to -130; P = 0.60); nor were total hospital costs (MD, CAD -78; 95% CI, -340 to 178; P = 0.57). Anesthesia-controlled time and total intraoperative time were significantly shorter for spinal anesthesia (MD, 14.6 min; 95% CI, 13.4 to 15.9; P < 0.001; MD, 15.9; 95% CI, 11.0 to 20.9; P < 0.001, respectively). There were no significant differences in complications.

CONCLUSION

Spinal anesthesia in the context of a dedicated block room reduced both anesthesia-controlled time and total OR time. This did not translate into a reduction in incremental cost in the spinal anesthesia group.

An Anesthesia Block Room Is Financially Net Positive for a Hospital Performing Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). It has shown efficiency benefits as it allows parallel processing of patients in a dedicated block room (BR). However, granular quantification of these benefits to hospital operations is lacking. The goal of this study was to determine the financial effect of establishing a BR using comprehensive operational modeling.

METHODS

A discrete-event simulation model of daily operating room (OR) patient flow for TJA procedures at a mid-sized hospital was developed. Two scenarios were tested: (1) without and (2) with a BR. Scenarios were compared according to staffing requirements, hours/day, and labor costs. The number of ORs and cases varied from 2 to 6 ORs performing 3 to 5 cases. These results were used as the inputs of a discounted cash flow (CF) model. Discounted CF model outputs were CF, net present value, internal rate of return, and return on investment.

RESULTS

Mean time savings of incorporating a BR were 68 min/d (range: 30 to 80 min/d), reducing the OR closing time by 1 hour. Incremental labor costs/day from nurse overtime pay ranged from $2,025 to $10,125 with no BR and $1,595 to $9,045 with a BR, which resulted in an increase in profit/day from $360 to $1,605. The CF/annum was $54,363, the net present value was $213,082, the internal rate of return was 12%, and the return on investment was 43.61%.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrates that under all scenarios, a BR is more profitable than no BR to a hospital performing TJA via a bundled care or private payer remuneration model. A BR was shown to be financially net positive even when considering the necessary financial investment to establish it. In addition, this study demonstrates the potential of combining discrete-event simulation with financial analyses to assess various operational models of care to improve hospital efficiency, such as dedicated trauma rooms and swing rooms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Development and internal validation of a multivariable risk prediction model for severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery involving single-shot popliteal sciatic nerve block

BACKGROUND

Rebound pain occurs after up to 50% of ambulatory surgeries involving regional anaesthesia. To assist with risk stratification, we developed a model to predict severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery involving single-shot popliteal sciatic nerve block.

METHODS

After ethics approval, we performed a single-centre retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing lower limb surgery with popliteal sciatic nerve block from January 2016 to November 2019 were included. Exclusion criteria were uncontrolled pain in the PACU, use of a perineural catheter, or loss to follow-up. We developed and internally validated a multivariable logistic regression model for severe rebound pain, defined as transition from well-controlled pain in the PACU (numerical rating scale [NRS] 3 or less) to severe pain (NRS ≥7) within 48 h. A priori predictors were age, sex, surgery type, planned admission, local anaesthetic type, dexamethasone use, and intraoperative anaesthesia type. Model performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), Nagelkerke's R², scaled Brier score, and calibration slope.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1365 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 50 [16] yr). The primary outcome was abstracted in 1311 (96%) patients, with severe rebound pain in 652 (50%). Internal validation revealed poor model performance, with AUROC 0.632 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.602-0.661; bootstrap optimisation 0.021), Nagelkerke's R² 0.063, and scaled Brier score 0.047. Calibration slope was 0.832 (95% CI: 0.623-1.041).

CONCLUSIONS

We show that a multivariable risk prediction model developed using routinely collected clinical data had poor predictive performance for severe rebound pain after foot and ankle surgery. Prospective studies involving other patient-related predictors are needed.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05018104.

Benchmarking of Anesthesia and Surgical Control Times by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT®) Codes

Over half of hospital revenue results from perioperative patient care, thus emphasizing the importance of efficient resource utilization within a hospital's suite of operating rooms (ORs). Predicting surgical case duration, including Anesthesia-controlled time (ACT) and Surgical-controlled time (SCT) has been significantly detailed throughout the literature as a means to help manage and predict OR scheduling. However, this information has previously been divided by surgical specialty, and only limited benchmarking data regarding ACT and SCT exists. We hypothesized that advancing the granularity of the ACT and SCT from surgical specialty to specific Current Procedural Terminology (CPT^®) codes will produce data that is more accurate, less variable, and therefore more useful for OR schedule modeling and management. This single center study was conducted using times from surgeries performed at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) between September 2018 - September 2019. Individual cases were categorized by surgical specialty based on the specialty of the primary attending surgeon and CPT codes were compiled from billing data. Times were calculated as defined by the American Association of Clinical Directors. I² values were calculated to assess heterogeneity of mean ACT and SCT times while Levene's test was utilized to assess heterogeneity of ACT and SCT variances. Statistical analyses for both ACT and SCT were calculated using JMP Statistical Discovery Software from SAS (Cary, NC) and R v3.6.3 (Vienna, Austria). All surgical cases (n = 87,537) performed at UCH from September 2018 to September 2019 were evaluated and 30,091 cases were included in the final analysis. All surgical subspecialties, with the exception of Podiatry, showed significant variability in ACT and SCT values between CPT codes within each surgical specialty. Furthermore, the variances of ACT and SCT values were also highly variable between CPT codes within each surgical specialty. Finally, benchmarking values of mean ACT and SCT with corresponding standard deviations are provided. Because each mean ACT and SCT value varies significantly between different CPT codes within a surgical specialty, using this granularity of data will likely enable improved accuracy in surgical schedule modeling compared to using mean ACT and SCT values for each surgical specialty as a whole. Furthermore, because there was significant variability of ACT and SCT variances between CPT codes, incorporating variance into surgical schedule modeling may also improve accuracy. Future investigations should include real-time simulations, logistical modeling, and labor utilization analyses as well as validation of benchmarking times in private practice settings.

Defining the Time Benefit of Awake Versus General Anesthesia for Single-Level Lumbar Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Awake anesthesia with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) might confer time benefits compared with traditional general anesthesia (GA) in the setting of single-level lumbar spine surgery. Therefore, we sought to define the quantitative time difference spent in the operating room between the MAC and GA approaches for single-level lumbar spine surgery.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of the senior surgeon was reviewed for single-level lumbar spine surgeries from 2019 to 2020 performed with the patient under either GA or MAC. The patient demographics, clinical features, time in the operating room, and postoperative outcomes were all summarized and statistically compared.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients satisfied all the selection criteria, with 25 (47%) in the GA group and 28 (53%) in the MAC group. Overall, most patients were men, with a median age of 60 years. The 2 groups were statistically comparable with respect to the demographics and preoperative anesthesia parameters. The time from room arrival to sedation start (median time, 26 vs. 38 minutes; P < 0.01), sedation time (median time, 55 vs. 87 minutes; P < 0.01), and time from sedation end to room exit (median time, 4 vs. 13 minutes; P < 0.01) were all significantly shorter for the MAC group. Additionally, the estimated blood loss was less in the MAC group (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

We found MAC to be a safe anesthesia option for use in single-level lumbar spine surgery, which led to statistically significant benefits regarding the time under sedation and time in the operating room compared with GA. Future studies are required to understand whether MAC will require other synergistic measures to generate observable change at a health systems level.

Operating room time comparison between spinal and general anesthesia in total knee arthroplasty: an institutional review

BACKGROUND

The type of anesthesia used in total knee arthroplasty is one modifiable factor that could save hospital systems time and money. With spinal and general anesthesia having similar outcomes, more weight can be placed on these anesthesia methods' time or money-saving aspects.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine the differences in time expenditure between spinal and general anesthesia for total knee arthroplasty to optimize OR efficiency and reduce costs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 200 unilateral total knee arthroplasty procedures (CPT Code 27447) was performed from Jan 2017 - July 2019 at one institution. 100 of these received spinal anesthesia, and 100 received general anesthesia. Patient charts were reviewed to obtain demographic, surgical, and anesthetic data.

RESULTS

Time to prepare the patient for surgery and total preoperative time was significantly decreased in the general anesthesia group (24.4 minutes vs. 18.5 minutes; p=<0.0001 and 25.4 minutes vs. 20.4 minutes; p=0.012). After surgery, the time to remove the patient from the operating room was significantly decreased in the spinal group (4.8 minutes vs. 7.0 minutes; p= <0.0001). Nonoperative total time was not significantly different between the two groups (49.3 minutes vs. 46.6 minutes; p=0.1127).

CONCLUSION

While there are significant differences in certain operating room time periods between spinal and general anesthesia, these differences are effectively canceled out when considering total operating room time.

Defining success in regional anaesthesia

Utilisation of regional anaesthesia is increasing globally; however, it remains challenging to determine the overall benefit of individual regional anaesthesia procedures. Like any peri-operative intervention, the benefit to the patient and healthcare system must outweigh any patient risk or resource implications. This review aims to identify markers of success in regional anaesthesia, categorise these into an objective framework and rationalise suggestions on how measuring outcomes in regional anaesthesia can be used to develop the widespread performance of this evolving subspecialty. This framework of measuring success of regional anaesthesia contains four pillars: patient-centred, population-centred, healthcare-centred and training-centred outcomes. Each pillar of success contains several outcomes which provide a structure for the measurement and development of regional anaesthesia success on a global scale.

Strategies for daily operating room management of ambulatory surgery centers following resolution of the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

We performed a narrative review to explore the economics of daily operating room management decisions for ambulatory surgery centers following resolution of the acute phase of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. It is anticipated that there will be a substantive fraction of patients who will be contagious, but asymptomatic at the time of surgery. Use multimodal perioperative infection control practices (e.g., including patient decontamination) and monitor performance (e.g., S. aureus transmission from patient to the environment). The consequence of COVID-19 is that such processes are more important than ever to follow because infection affects not only patients but the surgery center staff and surgeons. Dedicate most operating rooms to procedures that are not airway aerosol producing and can be performed without general anesthesia. Increase throughput by performing nerve blocks before patients enter the operating rooms. Bypass the phase I post-anesthesia care unit whenever possible by appropriate choices of anesthetic approach and drugs. Plan long-duration workdays (e.g., 12-h). For cases where the surgical procedure does not cause aerosol production, but general anesthesia will be used, have initial (phase I) post-anesthesia recovery in the operating room where the surgery was done. Use anesthetic practices that achieve fast initial recovery of the brief ambulatory cases. When the surgical procedure causes aerosol production (e.g., bronchoscopy), conduct phase I recovery in the operating room and use multimodal environmental decontamination after each case. Use statistical methods to plan for the resulting long turnover times. Whenever possible, have the anesthesia and nursing teams stagger cases in more than one room so that they are doing one surgical case while the other room is being cleaned. In conclusion, this review shows that while COVID-19 is prevalent, it will markedly affect daily ambulatory workflow for patients undergoing general anesthesia, with potentially substantial economic impact for some surgical specialties.

Impact of parallel processing of regional anesthesia with block rooms on resource utilization and clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Block rooms allow parallel processing of surgical patients with the purported benefits of improving resource utilization and patient outcomes. There is disparity in the literature supporting these suppositions. We aimed to synthesize the evidence base for parallel processing by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was undertaken of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the National Health Service (NHS) National Institute for Health Research Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, and Google Scholar for terms relating to regional anesthesia and block rooms. The primary outcome was anesthesia-controlled time (ACT; time from entry of the patient into the operating room (OR) until the start of surgical prep plus surgical closure to exit of patient from the OR). Secondary outcomes of interest included other resource-utilization parameters such as turnover time (TOT; time between the exit of one patient from the OR and the entry of another), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), OR throughput, and clinical outcomes such as pain scores, nausea and vomiting, and patient satisfaction. Fifteen studies were included involving 8888 patients, of which 3364 received care using a parallel processing model. Parallel processing reduced ACT by a mean difference (95% CI) of 10.4 min (16.3 to 4.5; p<0.0001), TOT by 16.1 min (27.4 to 4.8; p<0.0001) and PACU stay by 26.6 min (47.1 to 6.1; p=0.01) when compared with serial processing. Moreover, parallel processing increased daily OR throughout by 1.7 cases per day (p<0.0001). Clinical outcomes all favored parallel processing models. All studies showed moderate-to-critical levels of bias. Parallel processing in regional anesthesia appears to reduce the ACT, TOT, PACU time and improved OR throughput when compared with serial processing. PROSPERO CRD42018085184.

Prospective study on the application of a WALANT circuit for surgery of tunnel carpal syndrome and trigger finger

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate benefits for the patient and the economic impact for the implementation of a wide awake local anesthesia no tourniquet (WALANT) hand surgery compared to traditional major outpatient circuit.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was planned comparing 150 cases of ambulatory hand surgery (carpal tunnel and trigger finger) using WALANT technique intervention out from the operating room; with another 150 which underwent intervention, outpatient setting, with preoperative evaluation, sedation and tourniquet, in the operation room. Preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative pain was monitored, as well as the days that required postoperative analgesia.The resources used and costs were evaluated. Satisfaction was evaluated using a specific survey.

RESULTS

The pain during the surgery was equivalent for both groups and was significantly lower postoperatively for the WALANT group, with less need for the use of analgesics. Satisfaction was greater for the local anesthesia group. The use of personnel resources and hospital material was less for the WALANT group, with total saving calculated by 1,019€ per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Procedures such as carpal tunnel surgery and trigger finger surgery can be safely performed using wide awake surgery. Patient satisfaction is higher to conventional procedure in the operation room. Pain control is excellent, especially during the postoperative period. WALANT technique for hand surgery represents a benefit for the patient in comfort, timeliness and no need for preoperative tests or evaluation. In addition, it represents a significant savings in hospital resources.

Robot-Assisted Transversus Abdominis Plane Block: Description of the Technique and Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Several randomized clinical trials have shown the efficacy of percutaneous transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in decreasing pain after open and minimally invasive surgeries. We postulated that TAP block could be performed by a robot-assisted transperitoneal approach and provide postoperative pain control equivalent to local anesthetic port infiltration.

OBJECTIVE

To compare different indicators of postoperative pain between robot-assisted TAP and local anesthetic port infiltration in patients who had undergone robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective comparison of 214 consecutive patients undergoing RARP over a 1-year period was conducted. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative details, and outcomes, including time to ambulation, pain score, narcotic usage, and length of stay, were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 206 patients were included: 101 received local anesthetic port infiltration and 105 robot-assisted TAP block. There were no differences in estimated blood loss, operative time, time to ambulation, and length of stay between the two groups. The robot-assisted TAP block cohort experienced lesser pain than the local anesthetic port infiltration cohort in the intervals of 6 to 12 hours (2.05 vs 3.21, p = 0.0016) and 12 to 18 hours (2.19 vs 2.97, p = 0.0495) postoperation.

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted TAP block is a safe alternative to local anesthetic port-site infiltration. Robot-assisted TAP is associated with lower postoperative pain scores and less narcotic use than local anesthetic port-site infiltration.

Immediate Reconstruction Swing Room Scheduling Reduces Wait Times to Surgery and Increases Breast Reconstruction Rates

BACKGROUND

Despite benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, overall healthcare costs, and number of surgeries, historically fewer than 30% of patients undergo immediate breast reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer. A paucity of qualified oncologic and plastic surgeons coupled with inefficient use of operating room (OR) resources presents challenges in offering immediate breast reconstruction in a timely manner. To address these challenges, an immediate reconstruction swing room (IRSW) program was developed.

METHODS

IRSW scheduling leverages two concurrently running ORs, with the surgical oncologist and plastic surgeon moving between rooms to complete 2-4 combined mastectomy cases with immediate reconstruction, in addition to 1-2 independent cases, each operative day. The final year of traditional booking was compared with IRSW scheduling to assess wait times and reconstruction rates.

RESULTS

Comparing the 2 years, fewer surgical breast cases were performed with IRSW scheduling (1250 vs. 1178), however the overall number of oncology cases increased from 735 (59%) to 857 (73%). The number of immediate reconstructions performed increased from 75 to 139 (p < 0.0001), which reflects a mean of 1.2 IR cases versus 2.9 combined cases in IRSW. Overall, this facilitated an increase in the rate of immediate reconstruction following therapeutic mastectomy from 35 to 49% (p = 0.0004) and decreased wait times from core biopsy to surgery from 70 to 52 days (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary model with optimized scheduling has the potential to improve resource utilization and access to breast cancer care.

Anesthesia for ambulatory surgery

Ambulatory anesthesia allows quick recovery from anesthesia, leading to an early discharge and rapid resumption of daily activities, which can be of great benefit to patients, healthcare providers, third-party payers, and hospitals. Recently, with the development of minimally invasive surgical techniques and short-acting anesthetics, the use of ambulatory surgery has grown rapidly. Additionally, as the indications for ambulatory surgery have widened, the surgical methods have become more complex and the number of comorbidities has increased. For successful and safe ambulatory anesthesia, the anesthesiologist must consider various factors relating to the patient. Among them, appropriate selection of patients and surgical and anesthetic methods, as well as postoperative management, should be considered simultaneously. Patient selection is a particularly important factor. Appropriate surgical and anesthetic techniques should be used to minimize postoperative complications, especially postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Patients and their caregivers should be fully informed of specific care guidelines and appropriate responses to emergency situations on discharge from the hospital. During this process, close communication between patients and medical staff, as well as postoperative follow-up appointments, should be ensured. In summary, safe and convenient methods to ensure the patient's return to function and recovery are necessary.

The effect of anesthesia type on nonsurgical operating room time

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of local-only anesthesia on nonsurgical time compared with monitored anesthesia care (MAC)/local and general anesthesia. Our hypothesis was that local-only anesthesia cases would have lower nonsurgical times compared with MAC/local and general anesthesia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the surgical records of 1,179 patients undergoing elective hand surgery. For each case, we recorded the type of anesthesia used (general, MAC/local, or local-only anesthesia) and in-room presurgical time, in-room postsurgical time, and, if relevant, room turnover time. We did not record room turnover times for the first case of the day or for cases after procedures that did not meet inclusion criteria. We also recorded the presence of any anesthesia providers (anesthesiologist vs anesthesia-assistant [certified registered nurse anesthetist]).

RESULTS

A total of 566 cases performed on 501 patients met inclusion criteria. Room turnover times were not calculated for 304 cases. The choice of anesthesia had a significant effect on nonsurgical operating room time. Local anesthesia cases had significantly less nonsurgical time compared with general anesthesia and MAC/local. Cases performed under MAC/local anesthesia also had significantly reduced nonsurgical time compared with general anesthesia. The presence of a certified anesthesia assistant had no effect on any time metrics recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

Choice of local anesthesia, when appropriate, may facilitate rapid operating room turnover and improve overall facility efficiency with lower costs.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Which outcomes related to regional anesthesia are most important for orthopedic surgery patients?

An increasing body of evidence supports the benefits of regional anesthesia in orthopedic surgery. Compared with systemic anesthetic and analgesic approaches, these benefits include more focused and sustained pain control, less systemic side effects, improved patient comfort, earlier mobilization and hospital discharge, lower rates of advanced service requirements, and lower perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, there is discussion about the various outcomes as judged by patients and heath care practitioners. This article recapitulates the literature and presents an overview of endpoints.

Improving operating room productivity via parallel anesthesia processing

PURPOSE

Parallel processing of regional anesthesia may improve operating room (OR) efficiency in patients undergoes upper extremity surgical procedures. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate whether performing regional anesthesia outside the OR in parallel increases total cases per day, improve efficiency and productivity.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

Data from all adult patients who underwent regional anesthesia as their primary anesthetic for upper extremity surgery over a one-year period were used to develop a simulation model. The model evaluated pure operating modes of regional anesthesia performed within and outside the OR in a parallel manner. The scenarios were used to evaluate how many surgeries could be completed in a standard work day (555 minutes) and assuming a standard three cases per day, what was the predicted end-of-day time overtime.

FINDINGS

Modeling results show that parallel processing of regional anesthesia increases the average cases per day for all surgeons included in the study. The average increase was 0.42 surgeries per day. Where it was assumed that three cases per day would be performed by all surgeons, the days going to overtime was reduced by 43 percent with parallel block. The overtime with parallel anesthesia was also projected to be 40 minutes less per day per surgeon.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

Key limitations include the assumption that all cases used regional anesthesia in the comparisons. Many days may have both regional and general anesthesia. Also, as a case study, single-center research may limit generalizability.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Perioperative care providers should consider parallel administration of regional anesthesia where there is a desire to increase daily upper extremity surgical case capacity. Where there are sufficient resources to do parallel anesthesia processing, efficiency and productivity can be significantly improved.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Simulation modeling can be an effective tool to show practice change effects at a system-wide level.

Improving the Peri-operative care of Patients by instituting a 'Block Room' for Regional Anaesthesia

Regional anaesthesia has multiple known benefits over general anaesthesia alone, but requires time and expertise for its application. This study aimed to decrease anaesthetic time and increase total surgical operative time by instituting a ‘block room’ where regional anaesthesia nerve blocks could be provided by expert anaesthetists in regular scheduled sessions.

A baseline audit showed that 2 hours per day was spent on performing nerve blocks. Development of the block room allowed nerve blocks to be performed in parallel to surgical operations, reducing the mean anaesthetic control time from 44 mins to 27 mins. This freed time for an extra operative case per day. In addition, pooling of expertise to one site has allowed excellent teaching opportunities for anaesthetic trainees, and a specific training programme for regional anaesthesia is being produced.

In conclusion, instituting a block room has improved the efficiency of our theatre complex, and improved the service deliverable to our patients.