RESUMEN
Background: Anesthesia providers categorize patients utilizing the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification originally created by the ASA in 1941. There is published variability and discordance among providers when assigning patient ASA scores in part due to the subjectivity of scoring utilizing patient medical conditions, but variability is also found using objective findings like BMI. To date, there are few studies evaluating the accuracy of anesthesia providers' ASA assignment based on objective body mass index (BMI) alone. The aim of this retrospective chart review is to determine improvement in accuracy of anesthesia providers to correctly assign patient ASA scores, based on BMI criteria added to the ASA-PS in October of 2014, utilizing a multifaceted strategy including creation of an active finance committee in the fall of 2015, multiple e-mail communications about the updated definitions and recommendations for ASA-PS scoring in the fall of 2015 and spring of 2016, a department grand rounds presentation in February 2016, placement of laminated copies of the ASA definitions and recommendations in the anesthesia chartrooms, and the development of a tool embedded into our EMR providing a recommendation of ASA-PS based on patient comorbidity findings. Methods: After attaining IRB approval, all eligible patients over the age of 18 who had surgical procedures under general anesthesia at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. A segmented logistic regression model was used to estimate the trends (per-year change in odds) of ASA under classification according to severity of obesity during 3 epochs: preimplementation (2010-2014), implementation (2015), and postimplementation (2016-2020). Results: A total of 16,467 patients of the 200,423 (8.2%) patients with obesity (class 1, 2, and 3) were underscored based on BMI alone. Accuracy of ASA-PS classification, as it pertains to BMI alone, was found to show meaningful improvement year-to-year following the updated ASA-PS guidelines with examples released in October of 2014 (P < 0.001). Most of the improvement occurred in 2015-2017 with relatively little between-year variability in the rate of underscoring from 2017-2020. Conclusion: Despite updated ASA-PS published guidelines, providers may still be unaware of the updated guidelines and inclusion of examples used within the ASA-PS classification system. Accuracy of scoring did improve annually following the release of the updated guidelines with examples as well as department-wide educational activities on the topic. Additional education and awareness should be offered to those responsible for preanesthesia evaluation and assignment of ASA-PS in patients to improve accuracy as it pertains to BMI.
RESUMEN
Introduction and importance: Reports are limited on video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery for lung malignancy of patients with situs inversus totalis (SIT). Patients with SIT have significant anatomic differences with implications that are important for surgery, anesthesia, and nursing to understand in order to provide care for this patient population. Case presentation: A 64-year-old man with SIT and lung adenocarcinoma needed flexible bronchoscopy and wedge resection of a 9×8 mm adenocarcinoma in the right upper lobe and underwent video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery. Clinical discussion: Preoperative planning, including collaboration with the surgical team, allowed safe monitoring, induction of anesthesia, and airway isolation in this patient allowing them to have successful resection of their pulmonary malignancy. Postoperative care was enhanced by detailed communication and understanding of the patient's anatomy and implications of this condition for post anesthesia care unit nursing care. Conclusion: Patients with rare clinical conditions and backgrounds may require surgical and anesthetic intervention. The authors describe important anesthetic considerations of preoperative evaluation, airway management, cardiac monitoring, and vascular access that should be noted and taken into account for patients with SIT. Proper preparation, planning, and communication allow for patients with SIT to safely undergo surgical procedures.
RESUMEN
Background: Brachial plexus catheter placement at the interscalene level is beneficial for shoulder analgesia but presents logistical challenges due to the superficial nature of the plexus at this level, increased patient movement in the neck, and therefore higher likelihood for catheter dislodgement. Methods: Patients requiring shoulder arthroscopy and suprascapular nerve decompression were identified. Under arthroscopic guidance, a catheter was placed percutaneously into the scalene medius muscle next to the suprascapular nerve and the upper trunk of the brachial plexus. Patients were followed postoperatively for perioperative analgesic outcomes. Results: Ten patients were identified and consented for intraoperative brachial plexus catheter placement. Patient demographics and surgical details were determined. Postoperative adjunctive pain management and pain scores were variable. Two patients required catheter replacement using ultrasound guidance in the perioperative anesthesia care unit due to poorly controlled pain. There were no incidents of catheter failure due to dislodgement. Discussion: This study presents the first description of arthroscopically-assisted brachial plexus catheter placement. This method may present an alternative to traditional ultrasound guided interscalene catheter placement. Further study is needed to determine if analgesic outcomes, block success, and dislodgement rates are improved with this method.