Search

Background The effectiveness of thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) vs conventional IV analgesia (IA) after minimally invasive surgery is still unproven. We designed a randomized controlled trial comparing EA with IA after minimally invasive colorectal surgery. Study Design A total of 87 patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal procedures at a single institution between 2011 and 2014 were enrolled. Eight patients were excluded and 38 were randomized to EA and 41 to IA. Pain was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale and quality of life with the Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score daily until discharge. Results Mean age was 57 ± 14 years, 43% of patients were female, and mean BMI was 28.6 ± 6 kg/m 2 . The 2 groups were similar in demographic characteristics and distribution of diagnoses and procedures. Epidural analgesia had a higher incidence of hypotensive systolic blood pressure ( 0.05). Epidural and IA had equivalent mean lengths of stay (4 ± 3 days vs 4 ± 3 days), daily Visual Analogue Scale scores (2.4 ± 2.0 vs 3.0 ± 2.0), and Overall Benefit of Analgesia Scores (3.2 ± 2.0 vs 3.2 ± 2.0), and similar time to start oral diet (2.8 ± 2 days vs 2.2 ± 1 days). Epidural analgesia patients used a higher total dose of narcotics (147.5 ± 192.0 mg vs 98.1 ± 112.0 mg; p > 0.05). Epidural and IV analgesia had equivalent total hospital charges ($144,991 ± $67,636 vs $141,339 ± $75,579; p > 0.05). Conclusions This study indicates that EA has no added clinical benefit in patients undergoing minimally invasive colorectal surgery. A trend toward higher total narcotics use and complications with EA was demonstrated.

BACKGROUND As part of ongoing perioperative surgical home implantation process, we applied a previously published algorithm for creation of a maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) to our operating rooms. We hypothesized that using the MSBOS we could show a reduction in unnecessary preoperative blood testing and associated costs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Data regarding all surgical cases done at UC Irvine Health's operating rooms from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2014 were extracted from the anesthesia information management systems (AIMS). After the data were organized into surgical specialties and operative sites, blood order recommendations were generated based on five specific case characteristics of the group. Next, we assessed current ordering practices in comparison to actual blood utilization to identify potential areas of wastage and performed a cost analysis comparing the annual hospital costs from preoperative blood orders if the blood order schedule were to be followed to historical practices. RESULTS Of the 19,138 patients who were categorized by the MSBOS as needing no blood sample, 2694 (14.0%) had a type and screen (T/S) ordered and 1116 (5.8%) had a type and crossmatch ordered. Of the 6073 procedures where MSBOS recommended only a T/S, 2355 (38.8%) had blood crossmatched. The cost analysis demonstrated an annual reduction in actual hospital costs of $57,335 with the MSBOS compared to historical blood ordering practices. CONCLUSION We showed that the algorithm for development of a multispecialty blood order schedule is transferable and yielded reductions in preoperative blood product screening at our institution.

As part of ongoing perioperative surgical home implantation process, we applied a previously published algorithm for creation of a maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) to our operating rooms. We hypothesized that using the MSBOS we could show a reduction in unnecessary preoperative blood testing and associated costs.Data regarding all surgical cases done at UC Irvine Health's operating rooms from January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2014 were extracted from the anesthesia information management systems (AIMS). After the data were organized into surgical specialties and operative sites, blood order recommendations were generated based on five specific case characteristics of the group. Next, we assessed current ordering practices in comparison to actual blood utilization to identify potential areas of wastage and performed a cost analysis comparing the annual hospital costs from preoperative blood orders if the blood order schedule were to be followed to historical practices.Of the 19,138 patients who were categorized by the MSBOS as needing no blood sample, 2694 (14.0%) had a type and screen (T/S) ordered and 1116 (5.8%) had a type and crossmatch ordered. Of the 6073 procedures where MSBOS recommended only a T/S, 2355 (38.8%) had blood crossmatched. The cost analysis demonstrated an annual reduction in actual hospital costs of $57,335 with the MSBOS compared to historical blood ordering practices.We showed that the algorithm for development of a multispecialty blood order schedule is transferable and yielded reductions in preoperative blood product screening at our institution.

RESULTS: Mean age was 57 14 years; 43% of patients were female and mean BMI was 28.6 6 kg/m. The 2 groups were similar in characteristics. The EA group had a higher incidence of hypotensive systolic blood pressure ( 0.05). Mean length of stay (4 3 vs 4 3 days), daily VAS (3.0 2 vs 3.3 2), OBAS scores (3.6 2 vs 3.3 2), and time to start postoperative diet (2.8 2 vs 2.2 2 days) were equivalent. The EA patients had a trend toward a higher total dose of narcotics (147.5 192 vs 98.1 112 mg), and similar amounts of IV narcotics (59.34 152.18 vs 68.67 87.27 mg). The EA and IV groups had equivalent total hospital charges ($144,991 vs $141,338).