Postoperative analgesia and vomiting, with special reference to day-case surgery: a systematic review.
BACKGROUND: Day-case surgery is of great value to patients and the health service. It enables many more patients to be treated properly, and faster than before. Newer, less invasive, operative techniques will allow many more procedures to be carried out. There are many elements to successful day-case surgery. Two key components are the effectiveness of the control of pain after the operation, and the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. OBJECTIVES: To enable those caring for patients undergoing day-case surgery to make the best choices for their patients and the health service, this review sought the highest quality evidence on: (1) the effectiveness of the control of pain after an operation; (2) the effectiveness of measures to minimise postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Full details of the search strategy are presented in the report. RESULTS - ANALGESIA: The systematic reviews of the literature explored whether different interventions work and, if they do work, how well they work. A number of conclusions can be drawn. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INEFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS: There is good evidence that some interventions are ineffective. They include: (1) transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in acute postoperative pain; (2) the use of local injections of opioids at sites other than the knee joint; (3) the use of dihydrocodeine, 30 mg, in acute postoperative pain (it is no better than placebo). RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF DOUBTFUL VALUE: Some interventions may be effective but the size of the effect or the complication of undertaking them confers no measurable benefit over conventional methods. Such interventions include: (1) injecting morphine into the knee joint after surgery: there is a small analgesic benefit which may last for up to 24 hours but there is no clear evidence that the size of the benefit is of any clinical value; (2) manoeuvres to try and anticipate pain by using pre-emptive analgesia; these are no more effective than standard methods; (3) administering non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) by injection or per rectum in patients who can swallow; this appears to be no more effective than giving NSAIDs by mouth and, indeed, may do more harm than good; (4) administering codeine in single doses; this has poor analgesic efficacy. RESULTS-ANALGESIA, INTERVENTIONS OF PROVEN VALUE: These include a number of oral analgesics including (at standard doses): (1) dextropropoxyphene; (2) tramadol; (3) paracetamol; (4) ibuprofen; (5) diclofenac. Diclofenac and ibuprofen at standard doses give analgesia equivalent to that obtained with 10 mg of intramuscular morphine. Each will provide at least 50% pain relief from a single oral dose in patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain. Paracetamol and codeine combinations also appear to be highly effective, although there is little information on the standard doses used in the UK. The relative effectiveness of these analgesics is compared in an effectiveness 'ladder' which can inform prescribers making choices for individual patients, or planning day-case surgery. Dose-response relationships show that higher doses of ibuprofen may be particularly effective. Topical NSAIDs (applied to the skin) are effective in minor injuries and chronic pain but there is no obvious role for them in day-case surgery. RESULTS-POSTOPERATIVE NAUSEA AND VOMITING: The proportion of patients who may feel nauseated or vomit after surgery is very variable, despite similar operations and anaesthetic techniques. Systematic review can still lead to clear estimations of effectiveness of interventions. Whichever anti-emetic is used, the choice is often between prophylactic use (trying to prevent anyone vomiting) and treating those people who do feel nauseated or who may vomit. Systematic reviews of a number of different anti-emetics show clearly that none of the anti-emetics is sufficiently effective to be used for prophylaxis. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATE (+info)
Day surgery; development of a questionnaire for eliciting patients' experiences.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a single, short, acceptable, and validated postal questionnaire for assessing patients' experiences of the process and outcome of day surgery. DESIGN: Interviews and review of existing questionnaires; piloting and field testing of draft questionnaires; consistency and validity checks. SETTING: Four hospitals, in Coventry (two), Swindon, and Milton Keynes. PATIENTS: 373 patients undergoing day surgery in 1990. MAIN MEASURES: Postoperative symptoms, complications, health and functional status, general satisfaction, and satisfaction with specific aspects of care. RESULTS: Response rates of 50% were obtained on field testing draft questionnaires preoperatively and one week and one month after surgery. 28% of initial non-responders replied on receiving a postal reminder, regardless of whether or not a duplicate questionnaire was sent; a second reminder had little impact. Many patients who expressed overall satisfaction with their care were nevertheless dissatisfied with some specific aspects. Outcome and satisfaction were related to three aspects of case mix; patient's age, sex, and type of operative procedure. The final questionnaire produced as a result of this work included 28 questions with precoded answers plus opportunities to provide qualitative comments. Several factors (only one, shorter questionnaire to complete, fewer categories of nonresponders, and administration locally) suggested that a response rate of at least 65% (with one postal reminder) could be expected. CONCLUSION: A validated questionnaire for day surgery was developed, which will be used to establish a national comparative database. (+info)
Day surgery: development of a national comparative audit service.
OBJECTIVES: To develop software for hospitals to analyse their own survey data on patients' experiences of day surgery and to create and test the feasibility of a national comparative audit service. DESIGN: Software development and testing; database analysis. SETTING: Eleven general hospitals in England. PATIENTS: 1741 day surgery patients undergoing procedures during 1991-2. MAIN MEASURES: Postoperative symptoms, complications, health and functional status, general satisfaction, and satisfaction with specific aspects of care. RESULTS: Software for data entry and analysis by hospitals was successfully used at the pilot sites. The overall response rate for the 11 hospitals using the questionnaire was 60%, ranging from 33% to 90% depending on the way the survey was managed. Data from all 11 hospitals were included in the national comparative audit database. Hospitals showed little variation in measures of patients' overall satisfaction (around 85%), but significant differences were apparent for specific aspects such as receiving adequate written information before admission (range 50%-89%), provision of adequate parking facilities (14%-92%) and experiencing a significant amount of postoperative pain (8%-42%). The proportion of day case patients undergoing procedures that could have been performed in outpatient departments varied from 0 to 27% between hospitals. Further comparisons of outcome, in particular measures of effectiveness, must await the development of validated case mix adjustment methods. CONCLUSION: Establishing a comparative audit database is feasible but several methodological problems remain to be resolved. (+info)
Prospective audit comparing ambulatory day surgery with inpatient surgery for treating cataracts.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost effectiveness and safety of inpatient cataract surgery (with one night in hospital postoperatively) with ambulatory day case surgery under local anaesthesia. DESIGN: Prospective study of patients receiving inpatient (group 1) or day case (group 2) surgery. SETTING: One ophthalmic surgical firm. PATIENTS: 100 patients in each group, excluding those with coexisting ocular conditions, contraindications to local or request for general anaesthesia, ill health, or lack of agreed minimum social care; four patients died during follow up. INTERVENTIONS: Envelope method and implantation of the posterior chamber lens into the capsular sac in both groups. MAIN MEASURES: Perioperative complications, operating and turnover times, visual outcome at three to six days and 10 weeks to six months after operation, patient satisfaction (according to self administered questionnaire) at three to six days, and total costs (1989 salaries) for both groups. RESULTS: Patients in both groups did not differ significantly in age or sex, perioperative complications, visual outcome (6/9 or better in 78 patients in group 1 and 75 in group 2 at one month after operation and 6/12 or better in 92/98 in group 1, 90/98 in group 2 at final follow up), or patient satisfaction. The mean total cost per patient for group 1 patients was 365.99 pounds and for group 2, 221.62 pounds. CONCLUSIONS: Day case surgery for cataract is safe and more cost effective. IMPLICATIONS: Day case surgery should be recommended to increase availability of cataract surgery and thereby improve quality of life for more patients. (+info)
Same-day surgery ileostomy closure?
Loop ileostomy is a common procedure for temporary fecal diversion. Length of stay for ileostomy closure in many series is 3 to 6 days. There is, however, increasing pressure on surgeons to discharge patients as soon as possible. With attention to surgical details and careful perioperative management, it is possible to perform ileostomy closure as a same-day-discharge operation. This technique was used to treat six patients who needed ileostomy closure. All patients were discharged the day after or the day of the surgical intervention. There was no morbidity. Loop ileostomy and same-day ileostomy closure are cost-effective procedures for temporary fecal diversion. (+info)
Neostigmine with glycopyrrolate does not increase the incidence or severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting in outpatients undergoing gynaecological laparoscopy.
We studied 100 healthy women undergoing outpatient gynaecological laparoscopy in a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effect of neostigmine on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). After induction of anaesthesia with propofol, anaesthesia was maintained with sevoflurane and 66% nitrous oxide in oxygen. Mivacurium was used for neuromuscular block. At the end of anaesthesia, neostigmine 2.0 mg and glycopyrrolate 0.4 mg, or saline, was given i.v. The incidence of PONV was evaluated in the postanaesthesia care unit, on the ward and at home. The severity of nausea and vomiting, worst pain, antiemetic and analgesic use, times to urinary voiding and home readiness were recorded. During the first 24 h after operation, 44% of patients in the neostigmine group and 43% in the saline group did not have PONV. We conclude that neostigmine with glycopyrrolate did not increase the occurrence of PONV in this patient group. (+info)
Impact of new guidelines on physicians' ordering of preoperative tests.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the number of preoperative tests ordered for elective ambulatory surgery patients during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the establishment of new hospital testing guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: The patterns of preoperative testing by surgeons and a medical consultant during the 2 years before and the 2 years after the establishment of new guidelines at one orthopedic hospital were reviewed. All tests ordered preoperatively were determined by review of medical records. Preoperative medical histories, physical examinations, and comorbidities were obtained according to a protocol by the medical consultant (author). Perioperative complications were determined by review of intraoperative and postoperative events, which also were recorded according to a protocol. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 640 patients were enrolled, 361 before and 279 after the new guidelines. The mean number of tests decreased from 8.0 before to 5.6 after the new guidelines ( p =.0001) and the percentage decrease for individual tests varied from 23% to 44%. Except for patients with more comorbidity and patients receiving general anesthesia, there were decreases across all patient groups. In multivariate analyses only time of surgery (before or after new guidelines), age, and type of surgery remained statistically significant ( p =.0001 for all comparisons). Despite decreases in surgeons' ordering of tests, the medical consultant did not order more tests after the new guidelines ( p =.60) The majority of patients had no untoward events intraoperatively and postoperatively throughout the study period, with only 6% overall requiring admission to the hospital after surgery, mainly for reasons not related to abnormal tests. Savings from charges totaled $34,000 for the patients in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was variable compliance among physicians, new hospital guidelines were effective in reducing preoperative testing and did not result in increases in untoward perioperative events or in test ordering by the medical consultant. (+info)
Intranasal midazolam for premedication of children undergoing day-case anaesthesia: comparison of two delivery systems with assessment of intra-observer variability.
Midazolam is often used for paediatric premedication. We have compared two methods of administering midazolam intranasally in 44 surgical day-case children allocated randomly to receive midazolam 0.2 mg kg-1 as drops or midazolam 0.1 mg kg-1 from an intranasal spray device. Behaviour was recorded on a four-point scale by the parent, nurse and anaesthetist. Coefficients were obtained representing the change in behaviour score. There was no significant difference in method of administration (coefficient 0.13, P = 0.39). Children were significantly more distressed at the time of premedication and at the time of venous cannulation (coefficients 1.31 and 0.70) than at baseline. There was no significant difference in the assessments between observers. Midazolam by either method was equally effective but acceptability of the premedication was poor in both groups. Intranasal midazolam cannot be recommended as a method for routine premedication of young children. (+info)