Category: Uncategorized

Postoperative delirium is a common complication following surgery, particularly among elderly patients [1]. Characterized by acute and fluctuating changes in mental status, delirium can lead to serious consequences such as prolonged hospital stays, increased morbidity and mortality, and higher healthcare costs [1,2]. To mitigate these adverse effects, early detection and assessment of postoperative delirium are essential. In recent years, medical researchers and practitioners have developed and refined various tools for assessing and managing delirium in the postoperative setting. 

One such tool is the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), one of the most widely used tools for assessing delirium in general, including in the postoperative setting [3]. It is a reliable and validated instrument designed to be administered by healthcare professionals [3,4]. CAM evaluates four features of delirium, specifically acute onset and fluctuating course, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness [3,4]. If the patient meets the criteria for acute onset and inattention, the diagnosis of delirium is established [3,4]. 

Second, the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98) is a comprehensive tool used for assessing the severity of delirium in postoperative patients [5]. It evaluates cognitive impairment, fluctuating consciousness, psychomotor behavior, sleep-wake cycle disturbance, and other key features of delirium [5]. The DRS-R-98 provides a more detailed and nuanced assessment of delirium, allowing healthcare professionals to monitor its progression and tailor interventions accordingly [5]. 

Third, the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) is specifically designed to be convenient fornurses, making it a valuable tool in the postoperative setting where nurses play a pivotal role in patient care [6]. The Nu-DESC is a brief and easy-to-administer scale that evaluates six key indicators of delirium: level of consciousness, inattention, disorientation, hallucination or delusion, psychomotor retardation, and psychomotor agitation [6].  

Last, the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) is a rapid and reliable screening tool specifically designed for delirium assessment in older adults [7]. It is easy to administer and can be used by healthcare professionals across different disciplines [7]. The 4AT evaluates four domains: Attention, an Abbreviated mental test, Acute change or fluctuation, and Alertness [7]. Its brevity and simplicity make it suitable for use in busy postoperative settings, facilitating early detection and intervention. 

Postoperative delirium poses significant challenges for patients, caregivers, and healthcare systems. However, with the availability of various validated assessment tools, healthcare professionals can promptly identify and manage delirium, leading to improved patient outcomes. The Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC), and 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) are four essential instruments that play a crucial role in the early detection and management of postoperative delirium. By incorporating these tools for assessing delirium into routine clinical practice, healthcare providers can enhance patient safety, reduce complications, and promote a smoother recovery process for postoperative patients. 

References 

1. Ho, M., Nealon, J., Igwe, E. et al. (2021). Postoperative delirium in older patients: A systematic review of assessment and incidence of postoperative delirium. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 18(5), 290-301. 

2. Oh, S., & Park, J. (2019). Postoperative delirium. Korean journal of anesthesiology, 72(1), 4-12. 

3. Inouye, S., van Dyck, C., Alessi, C., Balkin, S., Siegal, A., & Horwitz, R. (1990). Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method: a new method for detection of delirium. Annals of internal medicine, 113(12), 941-948. 

4. Waszynski, C. (2004). Confusion assessment method (CAM). Medsurg Nursing, 13(4), 269. 

5. Sepulveda, E., Franco, J., Trzepacz, P. et al. (2015). Performance of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 against different delirium diagnostic criteria in a population with a high prevalence of dementia. Psychosomatics, 56(5), 530-541. 

6. Barnes, C., Webber, C., Bush, S. et al. (2019). Rating delirium severity using the nursing delirium screening scale: a validation study in patients in palliative care. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 58(4), e4-e7. 

7. Hou, L., Zhang, Q., Cao, L. et al. (2022). Diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT for delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 103374. 

Different types of anesthesia used during surgical procedures may have detrimental effects on cognitive functioning. Studies indicate the effects of anesthetics on the nervous system can impact our brains’ abilities to process and understand information, especially for patients who are already experiencing cognitive decline (5). Factors that impact a patient’s level of cognitive risk include the type of anesthesia that is used for the procedure, the specific analgesic drugs a patient receives, and how the anesthetics are administered. Furthermore, a patient’s age, lifestyle factors, and preexisting comorbidities can also influence their level of cognitive risk.

Patients who undergo surgical procedures may experience a condition called postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), a state of cognitive impairment after a surgical procedure that affects a patient’s executive functioning and memory (1). Most patients who experience postoperative cognitive dysfunction recover within a period of weeks to months, but some patients may suffer from long-term cognitive decline. 

Current scientific knowledge indicates that, among the different types of anesthesia, general anesthesia poses a higher level of cognitive risk. General anesthesia targets receptor proteins in the central nervous system to modify the activities of neurons (5). Patients who undergo general anesthesia can experience lasting cognitive issues, especially with children and the elderly. For example, studies have demonstrated that general anesthesia may have a correlation with cognitive dysfunction in the early postoperative period (6). Studies in rats and non-human primates have also suggested that early exposure to general anesthesia when animals are young can have long-term effects on memory, behavior, and cognitive functioning (5). 

In comparison to general anesthesia, regional anesthesia is considered to pose a lower level of cognitive risk. In one study of patients undergoing elective surgery, those who received regional anesthesia experienced a lower risk of developing dementia than patients who received either inhalation or non-inhalation general anesthesia (3). Accordingly, current scientific knowledge is that regional anesthesia is one of the types of anesthesia with lower cognitive risk. 

The type of analgesic drugs that are used during a procedure and the ways they are administered can also impact a patient’s level of cognitive risk. For example, using multimodal anesthesia, wherein a patient receives a combination of intravenous medications instead of inhalation anesthesia, may reduce a patient’s likelihood of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (2). Similarly, avoiding the use of opioids for pain management postoperatively may protect patients against cognitive decline (2). Narcotics, especially morphine agents, may increase the risk of postoperative cognitive dysfunction, so avoiding them whenever possible can help protect patients’ cognitive function. 

Studies on postoperative cognitive dysfunction continue to dispute the causes behind why some patients experience cognitive decline postoperatively. Aging in particular is a significant factor that has been shown to increase a patient’s vulnerability to the inflammatory effects of surgical procedures and the effects of anesthesia on the nervous system (4). Furthermore, patients who are already on a path of cognitive decline may be more susceptible to postoperative cognitive dysfunction. For example, those with Alzheimer’s disease can be more strongly affected by the neurotoxic effects of surgical stress and anesthesia, which may quicken the rate of cognitive decline (4). Overall, there are many factors that affect cognitive risk after anesthesia, and among the modifiable ones, research suggests that considering different anesthesia types and agents can improve outcomes. 

References 

1. Belrose, Jillian C, and Ruediger R Noppens. “Anesthesiology and cognitive impairment: a narrative review of current clinical literature.” BMC anesthesiology vol. 19,1 241. 27 Dec. 2019, doi:10.1186/s12871-019-0903-7 

1. Subramaniam, Balachundhar and Preeti Upadhyay. “Reducing your risk of changes in thinking following surgery.” Harvard Health Blog, Harvard Health Publishing, May 22 2020. www.health.harvard.edu/blog/reducing-your-risk-of-changes-in-thinking-following-surgery-2020052219898 

2. Sun, Mingyang et al. “Dementia risk after major elective surgery based on the route of anaesthesia: A propensity score-matched population-based cohort study.” EClinicalMedicine vol. 55 101727. 4 Nov. 2022, doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101727 

3. Vacas, Susana et al. “Cognitive Decline Associated With Anesthesia and Surgery in Older Patients.” JAMA, 10.1001/jama.2021.4773. 2 Aug. 2021, doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4773 

4. Wu, Lingzhi et al. “Lasting effects of general anesthetics on the brain in the young and elderly: “mixed picture” of neurotoxicity, neuroprotection and cognitive impairment.” Journal of anesthesia vol. 33,2 (2019): 321-335. doi:10.1007/s00540-019-02623-7 

5. Zywiel, Michael G et al. “The influence of anesthesia and pain management on cognitive dysfunction after joint arthroplasty: a systematic review.” Clinical orthopaedics and related research vol. 472,5 (2014): 1453-66. doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3363-2 

Orthopedic surgery patients have the highest risk of developing a surgical site infection (SSI) after an operation (2). Luckily, the risk of infection after orthopedic surgery can be reduced by following infection prevention measures before, during, and after surgery. These prevention measures include screening surgery candidates for risk factors, properly administering prophylactic antibiotics, and implementing institutional practices for infection prevention.

A crucial first step for infection prevention after orthopedic surgery is thoroughly evaluating orthopedic surgery candidates for modifiable risk factors in the preoperative period. Modifiable risk factors include malnourishment, tobacco and alcohol use, and mental health conditions (1). Identifying these risk factors allows physicians to properly address these issues prior to the procedure.  

Patients who have comorbid conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes also have a higher risk of developing an infection (1). While these risk factors may not be modifiable, evaluating a patient for comorbid conditions allows the patient’s care team to provide specific interventions and lower the risk of infection as much as possible. 

One of the most important measures for infection prevention after orthopedic surgery is the proper administration of prophylactic antibiotics during the procedure. The CDC recommends that prophylactic antibiotics be initiated within one-to-two hours before the surgery begins and continued throughout the procedure (5). Using the proper type of antibiotics for the particular procedure is crucial to this step (5). Furthermore, antibiotics should be discontinued within 24 hours of surgery completion, since administering them for too long can result in antibiotic resistance (5). 

Hospitals and other medical facilities can implement systemized, institutional approaches to prevent infection that are practiced by every care team. Protocols such as hand washing, patient risk assessment, and infection surveillance are likely to be part of this approach (4). Other prevention measures such as shaving the surgical site, nasal decolonization, and monitoring blood glucose levels can also be implemented before, during, or after surgery to minimize infection risk (2). However, antibiotic prophylaxis remains the most important step for preventing SSI. 

Surgical site infections can have lasting consequences for patients, including increased hospital length of stay, higher medical costs, and higher rates of morbidity and mortality (6). SSIs result in around 4 million additional days in the hospital and $2 billion in health care costs annually (5). Considering that orthopedic surgery patients have the highest risk for SSIs, orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and other care team members involved with orthopedic surgeries should take extra precautions for infection prevention. Taking proper steps preoperatively, intraoperatively, and postoperatively can have a significant effect on ensuring patient safety and promoting fast recoveries. 

References 

1. Antonelli, Brielle and Antonia F. Chen. “Reducing the risk of infection after total joint arthroplasty: preoperative optimization.” Arthroplasty, vol.1, no. 4, 1 Aug 2019. doi:10.1186/s42836-019-0003-7 

2. Copanitsanou, Panagiota. “Recognizing and preventing surgical site infection after orthopaedic surgery.” International Journal of Orthopaedic and Trauma Nursing, vol. 37, May 2020, pp. 100741. doi: 10.1016/j.ijotn.2019.100751 

3. Nagata, Kosei et al. “Effect of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis Duration on Health Care-Associated Infections After Clean Orthopedic Surgery.” JANA Network Open, vol. 5, no. 4, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.6095 

4. Perry, Kevin and Arlen D. Hanssen. “Orthopaedic Infection: Prevention and Diagnosis.” Journal of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, vol. 25, pp. S4-S6, Feb 2017. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00634  

5. Salkind, Alan R. and Kavitha C. Rao. “Antibiotic Prophylaxis to Prevent Surgical Site Infections.” American Family Physician, vol. 38, no. 5, 2011, pp. 585-590. www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2011/0301/p585.html 

6. Tucci, G et al. “Prevention of surgical site infections in orthopedic surgery: a synthesis of current recommendations.” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 23, no. 2, 2019, pp. 224-239. doi:10.26355/eurrev_201904_17497 

The use of regional nerve blocks in the management of perioperative pain has gained popularity in recent years. Also referred to as “preventive analgesia,” regional nerve blocks are a safe and effective method of pain management, where the blockade of specific nerves can lead to a reduction in postoperative pain and opioid consumption [1,2]. The timing of regional nerve block is an important consideration for proper analgesia.

During surgery, nociceptive signals initiated by tissue injury induce a state of central nervous system hyperactivity which causes patients to experience pain [3]. This central sensitization is thought to be the underlying mechanism of persistent postoperative pain [3]. Failure to control postoperative pain has been associated with prolonged hospital stays, increased healthcare costs, weakening of the immune system, and development of chronic pain [5]. The two main modalities of regional nerve blocks, single-shot and continuous, have both been shown to be a successful methods of controlling postoperative pain, specifically pain associated with mobilization, which is commonly the most difficult pain to alleviate [3]. 

One factor that influences the timing of the regional nerve block is the type of nerve block being used [2,4]. Continuous nerve blocks delivered through an indwelling catheter have been shown to have a small but significant advantage over single-shot nerve blocks in controlled postoperative pain in some studies [5]. A 2022 study comparing the benefits of a single-shot femoral nerve block versus a continuous femoral nerve block found that patients who received the former had a 50% reduction in the need for postoperative manipulation after total knee arthroplasty [5]. However, the superiority of continuous versus single-shot nerve blocks in pain management remains debated [5].  

Another factor that influences the timing of the regional nerve block is the type of surgery being performed [2,4]. In upper limb surgeries, a continuous brachial plexus block (CIBPB) is often given before or after the induction of anesthesia [4]. Some institutions have even beguan to explore initiating CIBPB postoperatively for pain control, although no significant difference between preoperatively initiated CIBPB and postoperatively initiated CIBPB was measured [4]. The choice of timing depends on the anesthesiologist’s preference, patient clinical status, and the surgery being performed [4]. In contrast, for lower limb surgeries, a femoral nerve block is typically administered after the induction of anesthesia due to the anatomical location of the nerve under the inguinal canal and discomfort that patients can experience if the block is performed while they are awake [5]. 

Furthermore, the timing of regional nerve block administration before surgery remains an area of controversy partially due to concerns about rebound pain when the effects of the block wear off [2]. The phenomenon of rebound pain has only started to be explored in recent literature [2]. A 2017 study sought to explore this concept by interviewing patients who received a peripheral nerve block before ankle surgery [2]. All patients received a single-shot popliteal sciatic and saphenous nerve block as primary anesthesia using ropivacaine 0.75% [2]. Patients were told to expect a minimal block duration of 12 hours [2]. The results of the study found that most patients generally expressed satisfaction with the peripheral nerve block regardless of their postoperative pain profile [2]. Mental alertness, increased mobility, and the ability to eat without nausea were advantages emphasized in patient interviews [2]. Some did experience “excruciating” pain when the single-shot block wore off, and it appears that nocturnal cessation of the blocks’ effect worsened the issue [2]. 

Given the current lack of consensus on the ideal timing of regional nerve block administration, anesthesiologists should use evidence-based clinical judgement and patient preference to make decisions on whether to administer a nerve block before or after induction of anesthesia, and whether to use a single-shot or continuous mode of analgesia. Further research is needed to establish the optimal timing of regional nerve blocks. 

References 

1. Richebé, P., Rivat, C., & Liu, S. (2013). Perioperative or postoperative nerve block for preventive analgesia: should we care about the timing of our regional anesthesia?. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 116(5), 969-970. 

2. Henningsen, M., Sort, R., Møller, A., & Herling, S. (2018). Peripheral nerve block in ankle fracture surgery: a qualitative study of patients’ experiences. Anaesthesia, 73(1), 49-58. 

3. Lavand’homme, P. (2011). From preemptive to preventive analgesia: time to reconsider the role of perioperative peripheral nerve blocks?. Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, 36(1), 4-6. 

4. Kim, H. J., Kim, H., Koh, K. et al. (2022). Initiation Timing of Continuous Interscalene Brachial Plexus Blocks in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Before-and-After Study. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 12(5), 739. 

5. Freccero, D., Van Steyn, P., Joslin, P. et al. (2022). Continuous Femoral Nerve Block Reduces the Need for Manipulation Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. JBJS Open Access, 7(3). 

Physician assistants or PAs are medical professionals that make up a critical part of the healthcare workforce, especially in primary care. While physician assistants aren’t medical doctors, they may perform many of the services traditionally provided by MDs, including physical exams, ordering and interpreting tests, and advising patients on preventative health care (1). The role of physician assistants in primary care is becoming increasingly important due to a shortage of medical doctors specializing in primary care (3). As the population in the United States ages and more people gain access to insurance coverage, physician assistants are expected to make up more of the share of providers that provide routine primary care to patients (1). 

The role of the physician assistant was first conceptualized in the 1960s to address the shortage of medical professionals in primary care (2). Since then, the number of PAs in the medical field has increased, but the percentage of PAs working in primary care has gone down (2). Research indicates that physician assistants who choose to work in primary care share many of the demographic characteristics of medical students who become primary care doctors. PA and MD students that identify as women, are older, and come from lower-income socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to work in the primary care field, perhaps because they better understand the healthcare needs of medically underserved communities and minority groups (2). 

Furthermore, studies have found that physician assistants are more likely to work in non-teaching hospitals and provide care to Medicaid recipients, uninsured patients, and younger patients (1). PAs are also more likely to work in smaller medical facilities in remote areas that would otherwise be classified as medically underserved communities without their presence (1). 

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners may deliver care that is more preventative compared to traditional doctors, who tend to address pre-existing health issues or complex cases (1). Long-term trends indicate that physician assistants and nurse practitioners may become the main primary care providers in the future, allowing MDs to perform more managerial roles and focus on in-patient care in hospitals.

Working with a physician assistant can provide multifarious benefits for medical doctors and clinics. For example, PAs can allow medical clinics to handle larger patient caseloads and give doctors the ability to lower their workload (3). The presence of a PA may decrease waiting times and increase the quality of care since medical facilities will be less overburdened. As a result, doctors can focus their energy on more complex cases and patients can experience more attentiveness and preventative care during their visits. 

While doctors report a high level of support for the PA profession, some MDs consider physician assistants to be time-consuming and expensive for healthcare facilities due to increased administrative tasks and a higher volume of low-revenue patients (3). Recently, the national organization for physician assistants rebranded its organization to be called the American Academy of Physician Associates (5). This internal change in the name of the profession reflects a desire for PAs to be viewed as mid-level healthcare providers rather than “assistants” that simply provide help to physicians. The name “physician assistant” can cause confusion amongst patients, since, in many cases, PAs no longer work under the direct supervision of a physician in the same clinic. However, doctors are still required to meet regularly with PAs and review sample patient charts in some states (5). 

Physician assistants continue to advocate for more autonomy in their scope of practice to fill in existing gaps in primary care and move towards more prevention-focused healthcare methodologies while maintaining a team-based approach to healthcare collaborating with doctors. Evidence suggests that prioritizing primary care and encouraging more physician assistants to work within the field helps increase the accessibility of medical care and results in lower medical costs for patient populations (6). 

References 

1. Cawley, James F. “Physician Assistants and Their Role in Primary Care.” Virtual Mentor, 2012, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 411-414, doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2012.14.5.pfor2-1205. 

2. Coplan, Bettie et al. “Physician Assistants in Primary Care: Trends and Characteristics.” Annals of Family Medicine, Jan 2013, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 75-79, doi: 10.1370/afm.1432  

3. Halter, Mary et al. “The contribution of Physician Assistants in primary care: a systematic review.” BMC Health Services Research, 18 June 2013, vol. 13, no. 223, doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-223 

4. Jaspen, Bruce. “Physician Assistant Demand Rivals That of Primary Care Doctors.” Forbes, 19 Feb 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/02/19/physician-assistant-demand-rivals-the-need-for-primary-care-doctors/ 

5. Rau, Jordan. “Physician assistants want to be called physician associates, but doctors cry foul.” NPR, 3 Dec 2021, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/03/1059916872/physician-assistants-want-to-be-called-physician-associates-but-doctors-cry-foul 

6. van Erp, R.M.A. et al. “Physician Assistants and Nurse Practitioners in Primary Care Plus: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Integrated Care, 12 Feb 2021, vol. 21, no. 6, doi: 10.5334/ijic.5485.s110.5334/ijic.5485.s1doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5485.s1 

Healthcare mergers and acquisitions (or M&As) occur when two or more healthcare organizations join their operations, resulting in a larger entity. These types of mergers can take on many different forms, including mergers between insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other healthcare businesses. There has been an increase in M&A activity in the healthcare industry in recent years. This trend is predicted to persist into 2023, with standalone facilities often being absorbed by larger, more established players (1). In line with current laws that aim to regulate and limit negative effects of such large movements on the general public, healthcare M&As are carefully scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

The DOJ plays a key role in regulating healthcare M&As. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division in particular is responsible for making sure that M&As do not reduce competition or result in anticompetitive behavior across the healthcare industry. To this end, the division reviews proposed M&As to estimate whether they would harm healthcare recipients by reducing the quality of care, inflating prices, or reducing innovation in the healthcare space. 

When the DOJ concludes that a proposed healthcare merger might harm competition, it may take action to require certain conditions be met before approving it or simply block the merger. For example, the DOJ may require the divestment of certain assets or business lines to prevent the merged entity from accumulating too much market power. 

Recently, the DOJ has been particularly active in reviewing healthcare M&As—partially a result of the increasing consolidation in the healthcare industry, which has fueled concerns about the potential for increased healthcare costs and reduced competition. 

In 2023, the Antitrust Division withdrew three outdated antitrust policy statements linked to enforcement in healthcare markets: the Department of Justice and FTC Antitrust Enforcement Policy Statements in the Health Care Area (Sept. 15, 1993), Statements of Antitrust Enforcement Policy in Health Care (Aug. 1, 1996), and Statement of Antitrust Enforcement Policy Regarding Accountable Care Organizations Participating in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (Oct. 20, 2011) (2). Following careful review, the division had assessed that the withdrawal of the three statements would the best way to promote continued competition and transparency. The statements were found to be overly permissive as regards information sharing and were no longer effectively fulfilling their aims of providing guidance to the public on relevant healthcare competition issues. The broad goal was to increase transparency around the division’s enforcement policies in healthcare markets (3). The Federal Trade Commission is expected to follow the DOJ’s lead (2). However, some critics continue to argue that the DOJ has not been sufficiently aggressive in preventing anticompetitive behavior and challenging healthcare mergers. 

Overall, healthcare M&As are complex transactions requiring deep and thorough consideration and regulatory oversight. The DOJ’s mission in reviewing mergers is an essential protection against anticompetitive behavior, ultimately ensuring that consumers continue to have access to affordable, high-quality healthcare services. 

The healthcare industry is in a state of constant evolution, but understanding the role of the DOJ in healthcare M&As is important for appropriate planning (1). 

References  

1. Top 3 healthcare M&A trends for 2023 | Healthcare IT News [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.healthcareitnews.com/blog/top-3-healthcare-ma-trends-2023 

2. DOJ withdraws certain health care antitrust enforcement guidance | AHA News [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2023-02-03-doj-withdraws-certain-health-care-antitrust-enforcement-guidance 

3. Justice Department Withdraws Outdated Enforcement Policy Statements | OPA | Department of Justice [Internet]. [cited 2023 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-withdraws-outdated-enforcement-policy-statements 

Prostate surgery can be carried out to treat prostate cancer, an enlarged prostate or benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), urinary continence, or erectile dysfunction in some cases ¹. The goal of anesthesia for prostate surgery is to minimize pain before, during, and after surgery.  

There are multiple different approaches for prostate surgery, depending on the goal, which will require different anesthesia approaches. In a traditional open surgery or open approach, a surgeon will make an incision through the skin to excise out the prostate and nearby tissues. Either a radical retropubic or a radical perineal approach can be used during open prostate surgery. For both approaches, a patient can be under general anesthesia or spinal or epidural anesthesia.

Regional anesthesia and analgesia may favor minimal residual disease following removal of a primary tumor due to how it affects the body. A retrospective review of patient medical records looked at records from patients receiving open prostatectomy with general anesthesia. This study identified that, after adjusting for tumor size and date of surgery, among other factors,  using epidural analgesia with general anesthesia instead of postoperative opioids with general anesthesia was linked to a substantially lower risk of biochemical cancer recurrence after prostate surgery ².  

A recent retrospective study revealed that combined spinal epidural anesthesia seems to be suitable and efficient for patients undergoing open radical retropubic prostatectomy. This specific approach reduces the average time in the operating unit and the length of the hospital stay ³. 

Laparoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive prostate surgery method that has become more widespread due to advancing technology and techniques. Two main approaches can be used tfor laparascopic prostate surgery. A laparoscopic radical prostatectomy requires multiple small cuts for the insertion of small surgical instruments, after which a surgical camera is inserted. In a robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, a surgeon directs a robotic arm while viewing a computer monitor, providing maneuverability and precision. 

While any induction agent can be used for anesthesia, anesthetic management of prostate surgery patients needs to consider medical co-morbidities and medically optimize patients prior to surgery. Research has found that side effects remain minimal with robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Anesthetic and perioperative complications are rare. However, these do include a 1.3% incidence of postoperative anemia, postoperative pulmonary emboli, and, seemingly most commonly, corneal abrasions ⁴.  

Meanwhile, prostate laser surgery, endoscopic surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), or transurethral incision of the prostate are additional surgical approaches that can help with urine flow. While TURP remains the surgical gold standard to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, perioperative-associated morbidity remains high, ranging from 18% and 26%. In addition, between 1% and 8% of TURP procedures are complicated by TURP syndrome ⁵. The symptoms of TURP syndrome and bladder perforation may be masked under sedation and general anesthesia ⁶, and regional anesthesia may be warranted ⁷. 

Research has found that open prostatectomy may incur fewer complications if the prostate is very large (>100 g); prostatic size may be preemptively assessed by transrectal ultrasound scanning, endoscopic inspection, or manual examination ⁸. 

In any case, it is important after the surgery to keep the surgical wound clean, not drive, not do any high-energy activity, avoid sitting for more than 45 minutes, and take pain medications as prescribed. 

Additional research is required in order to validate and elucidate the links between anesthesia for prostate surgery and certain clinical outcomes. For example, prospective randomized trials to assess the link between substituting epidural analgesia for postoperative opioids and the substantially lower risk of cancer recurrence are required. This research will continue to help select the best anesthesia approach depending on clinical context. 

 
References 

1. What You Need to Know About Prostate Surgery. Available at: https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-surgery. (Accessed: 3rd February 2023) 

2. Biki, B. et al. Anesthetic technique for radical prostatectomy surgery affects cancer recurrence: A retrospective analysis. Anesthesiology (2008). doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e31817f5b73 

3. Kofler, O. et al. Anesthesia for Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy: A Comparison between Combined Spinal Epidural Anesthesia and Combined General Epidural Anesthesia. Prostate Cancer (2019). doi:10.1155/2019/4921620 

4. Danic, M. J. et al. Anesthesia considerations for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A review of 1,500 cases. in Journal of Robotic Surgery (2007). doi:10.1007/s11701-007-0024-z 

5. Hahn, R. G. Fluid absorption in endoscopic surgery. British Journal of Anaesthesia (2006). doi:10.1093/bja/aei279 

6. Demirel, I., Ozer, A. B., Bayar, M. K. & Erhan, O. L. TURP syndrome and severe hyponatremia under general anaesthesia. BMJ Case Rep. (2012). doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006899 

7. Mebust, W. K. et al. Transurethral prostatectomy: Immediate and postoperative complications. Cooperative study of 13 participating institutions evaluating 3,885 patients. J. Urol. (2002). doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65370-0 

8. O’Donnell, A. M. & Foo, I. T. H. Anaesthesia for transurethral resection of the prostate. Contin. Educ. Anaesthesia, Crit. Care Pain (2009). doi:10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkp012 

Recently identified as belonging to the filovirus genus, the Marburg virus (MARV) is another aggressive infectious agent with similar epidemiology to the Ebola virus (EBOV). There have been sporadic cases of MARV in Africa over the last decade, but the most recent cases occurred in Ghana this summer. Although this was Ghana’s first time encountering cases of Marburg virus, the quick response of medical practitioners at the clinic in the Ashanti region where the first case was identified was a key step in interrupting the spread of MARV throughout the region.²  

Ghana’s supposed patient zero was a 26-year-old male who eventually succumbed to the disease 3 days after his symptoms started on June 24, 2022. His symptoms included fever, malaise, epistaxis, bleeding from the mouth, and subconjunctival hemorrhage. On June 28, 2022, a 51-year-old male reported to the hospital with the same symptoms; he died the same day. Blood samples from both victims were tested using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR). NMIMR confirmed MARV as the cause of death. Further investigation by the Pasteur Institute in Senegal verified the results. According to the investigation conducted, animal contact played no role in these two cases. The evidence supports human to human transmission; the primary route is direct exposure to the blood or bodily fluids of an infected person. Contact tracing was used to identify 90 individuals who were exposed; they were quarantined and monitored.¹ In total, 198 people were tested for MARV and all presented with negative results.³ Dr. Kasalo, W.H.O. representative to Ghana, credits the success of quelling this outbreak to “early alert and response, strong surveillance, community involvement and participation, and coordinated efforts”.² W.H.O. declared an end of the Marburg virus outbreak September 16, 2022. ²  

Historically, MARV outbreaks on the continent have been moderate, regularly reporting less than 400 cases per incident. In 1980, Kenya reported 2 cases of MARV with fever and malaise. Seven years later, one additional case was reported in Kenya. From 1998-2000, the Democratic Republic of Congo dealt with 154 cases, but the worst outbreak happened in Angola between 2004-2005. A total of 374 cases were reported in this outbreak. Finally, Uganda had the most recent MARV cases and these periodically emerged from 2007-2017. No more than 15 cases were reported per outbreak in Uganda.¹ 

The CDC states that preventative measures against Marburg virus are poorly defined since no vaccine or antiviral drugs exist. Avoiding fruit bats, the natural host of the virus is recommended to prevent zootrophic transmission and early identification and isolation of a human host also prevents transmission. People at highest risk for contracting MARV are veterinarians working with non-human primates, laboratory workers handling the virus and travelers visiting regions of Africa endemic to fruit bats. To prevent infection in such settings, wearing personal protective clothing like gloves, masks, and gowns is recommended. Avoiding fecal matter from the host bats and infected humans is necessary, especially in the clinical setting. Rapid testing is recommended by the CDC to control the spread. ⁴ 

References 

1.  Jack Wellington, Ayça Nur, Aderinto Nicholas, Olivier Uwishema, Hassan Chaito, Olutola Awosiku, Yusuf Jaafer Al Tarawneh, Jana Abdul Nasser Sharafeddine, Chinyere Vivian Patrick Onyeaka, Helen Onyeaka, “Marburg virus outbreak in Ghana: An impending crisis,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery, Volume 81, 2022,104377,ISSN 2049-0801 

2. Sayibu Ibrahim Suhuyini “Beating Marburg virus outbreak: Ghana’s journey to victory” https://www.afro.who.int/countries/ghana/news/beating-marburg-virus-outbreak-ghanas-journey-victory  

3. Mensah, Kent “Ghana Marburg Outbreak Declared Over” https://www.voanews.com/a/ghana-marburg-outbreak-declared-over-/6750533.html 

4. Center for Disease Control and Prevention “Marburg” https://www.cdc.gov/vhf/marburg/index.html  

Minor surgery is generally defined as a surgical procedure which does not require general anesthesia and can be performed electively and in an outpatient setting. Of note, there is no clear official delineation between major and minor surgeries, but minor surgeries are less invasive and less risky (Newsome et al., 2021). Patients undergoing any surgeries are often required to fast from fluid and food beforehand. This, however, can lead to dehydration and place them at risk of organ injury and failure. Administering intravenous (IV) fluids may have positive effects. Conversely, fluid overload may decrease pulmonary function and gut motility (Brandstrup, 2006). Most research on fluid therapy during surgery focuses on major surgery. However, less is understood on the value of IV fluids during minor surgery and how they may affect a patient’s clinical course.

A study found that patients who received 2 liters of IV fluids intra- and postoperatively recovered quicker from the effects of surgery and anesthesia compared to patients without fluids. This was a group of patients undergoing ambulatory gynecologic laparoscopy surgery. Though this is a small volume of IV fluids, it appeared to have immediately measurable effects on patients postoperatively. The authors hypothesized that this was due to a correction of  dehydration. In terms of patient satisfaction, 93% of patients who had intravenous fluids felt the most recent anesthetic experience was better than past ones (Keane & Murray, 2007).  Other trials testing different intravenous fluid volumes on the outcomes of outpatient surgery found similar improvements in self-reported symptoms such as drowsiness and dizziness. In general, the volume of fluids given was approximately the same as the deficit from fasting, which may point to a benefit to replacing fluid losses from fasting. However, this research did not show if IV fluids would be beneficial in minor surgery in terms of external loss of fluid during an operation (Brandstrup, 2006).  

However, patient satisfaction, though important, is a subjective assessment of IV fluids during minor surgery. In two groups of 15 patients undergoing minor gynecologic surgery, there was no obvious clinical benefit of IV fluids administration (Ooi et al., 1992). This study attempted to use objective testing including two tests of psychomotor function. There was no significant difference between postoperative motor reaction times. Notably, the patients in this study were healthy and underwent a short duration of anesthesia. Fluids and hydration may be more important for longer surgeries. 

Furthermore, the benefit of IV fluids during minor surgery may depend on a patient’s risk level. Preoperative administration of 2mL/kg for every hour patients had fasted from fluids decreased incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, this was for patients scheduled for diagnostic gynecologic laparoscopy, which is typically a less urgent procedure compared to other situations that would require minor surgery (Maharaj et al., 2005). Other factors that may influence recovery include nature and duration of the procedure, individual patient risk, and the anesthesia method used (Ooi et al., 1992).  

Ooi et al. brought up an interesting point in their study: perhaps further research may focus on the benefits of oral fluids versus IV fluids in minor surgery. Oral fluids offer a more cost-effective solution, and patients are often deprived of fluids a long period before minor surgeries (Ooi et al., 1992). Clear fluids may be safe for patients in limited volumes closer to the surgery start time. Another topic of research may focus on the effects of fluid overload compared to hypovolemia. This topic may fuel further investigation into more carefully assessing role of fluids during minor surgery.  

References 

Brandstrup B. Fluid therapy for the surgical patient. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2006;20(2):265-283. doi:10.1016/j.bpa.2005.10.007 

Keane PW, Murray PF. Intravenous fluids in minor surgery. Their effect on recovery from anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1986;41(6):635-637. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1986.tb13059.x 

Maharaj CH, Kallam SR, Malik A, Hassett P, Grady D, Laffey JG. Preoperative intravenous fluid therapy decreases postoperative nausea and pain in high risk patients. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(3):675-682. doi:10.1213/01.ANE.0000148684.64286.36 

Newsome K, McKenny M, Elkbuli A. Major and minor surgery: Terms used for hundreds of years that have yet to be defined. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2021;66:102409. Published 2021 May 25. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.102409 

Ooi LG, Goldhill DR, Griffiths A, Smith C. IV fluids and minor gynaecological surgery: effect on recovery from anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68(6):576-579. doi:10.1093/bja/68.6.576

Intravenous lidocaine is widely used for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery. In addition, concern about opioid risks in the postoperative period has galvanized the use of nonopioid analgesic adjuncts.¹ However, if used inappropriately and incorrectly, intravenous lidocaine can have fatal consequences – therefore, it is extremely important to administer intravenous (IV) lidocaine for surgical pain according to a careful, well-informed protocol.

The decision to administer intravenous lidocaine or not depends on the type of surgery and individual patient factors, including but not limited to the presence of any existing condition that affects pain management and risk (such as pre-existing chronic pain). This decision mainly focuses on three priorities. First, is intravenous lidocaine safe? Second, does intravenous lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and speed up recovery? Third, how is intravenous lidocaine licensed for use?²

In general, while perioperative IV lidocaine infusion is indeed effective at reducing pain, evidence supporting its use varies according to the surgical procedure. However, the benefits of intravenous lidocaine are clear in certain clinical contexts. For example, it prevents airway reactivity on emergence in smokers and quenches cerebral hemodynamic responses to airway manipulation.³ It may also reduce anesthetic requirements by approximately one-third in specific situations.⁴ It may further reduce neuropathic pain by inhibiting the activity of injured afferent nerves.⁵ Finally, following laparoscopic nephrectomy, it can reduce the need for postoperative morphine, ameliorating postoperative pain management and recovery.⁶

In general, notable guidelines have been developed to ensure the appropriateness, safety and efficacy of intravenous lidocaine for surgical pain.  

First and foremost, the use of IV lidocaine for acute surgical pain should be approved by the local hospital and medication governance committee or equivalent. When possible, consent should also be obtained by patients.  

As regards its administration, certain researchers recommend an initial dose not exceeding 1.5 mg/kg, calculated using the patient’s ideal body weight and provided as an infusion over 10 minutes. Thereafter, researchers recommend an infusion not exceeding 1.5 mg/kg/h for no more than 24 hours, subject to re-assessment.  

Furthermore, intravenous lidocaine should not be used in conjunction with any other local anesthetic interventions. Therefore, intravenous lidocaine should not be administered within 4 hours of any nerve block. Conversely, no nerve block should be performed within 4 hours of discontinuing an intravenous lidocaine infusion. 

Outside the operating theater and recovery room, patients receiving intravenous lidocaine should be monitored to quickly address complications, if any arise. Particular attention should be paid to patients who have an existing comorbidity.²

In the end, however, the approach selected for the use of intravenous lidocaine should be approved by hospital health governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be carried out following properly informed consent on behalf of the patient. 

In conclusion, IV lidocaine may be a key pillar of a pain management strategy for surgical pain. However, it needs to be very carefully delivered. In the meantime, additional research in the form of further randomized control trials with a large sample size⁷ is warranted in order to corroborate and specify current protocols.

References 

1. Dunn, L. K. & Durieux, M. E. Perioperative Use of Intravenous Lidocaine. Anesthesiology (2017). doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001527 

2. Foo, I. et al. The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety. Anaesthesia (2021). doi:10.1111/anae.15270 

3. Hamill, J. F., Bedford, R. F., Weaver, D. C. & Colohan, A. R. Lidocaine before endotracheal intubation: Intravenous or laryngotracheal? Anesthesiology (1981). doi:10.1097/00000542-198111000-00016 

4. Kaba, A. et al. Intravenous lidocaine infusion facilitates acute rehabilitation after laparoscopic colectomy. Anesthesiology (2007). doi:10.1097/00000542-200701000-00007 

5. Kirillova, I. et al. Effect of local and intravenous lidocaine on ongoing activity in injured afferent nerve fibers. Pain (2011). doi:10.1016/j.pain.2011.02.046 

6. Tauzin-Fin, P. et al. Benefits of intravenous lidocaine on post-operative pain and acute rehabilitation after laparoscopic nephrectomy. J. Anaesthesiol. Clin. Pharmacol. (2014). doi:10.4103/0970-9185.137269 

7. Yue, H., Zhou, M., Lu, Y., Chen, L. & Cui, W. Effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative pain in patients undergoing intraspinal tumor resection: Study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial. J. Pain Res. (2020). doi:10.2147/JPR.S249359