Keywords
Day surgery, operating theatre turn around, theatre efficacy, surgical scrubbing, sterile covering
Day surgery, operating theatre turn around, theatre efficacy, surgical scrubbing, sterile covering
The manuscript is revised based on the structured and constructive comments by the referees. The primary study objective on which the power analysis is based, is more adequately expressed in the Methods, Results and Discussion sections. The limitations and need for further studies are also incorporated.
We have tried as far as possible to adhere to all comments from referees.
See the authors' detailed response to the review by Jakob Walldén
Day surgery, where the patient leaves the hospital on the same day as surgery, is increasing. Shortening a hospital stay is associated to several benefits: Early ambulation reduces the risk for thromboembolic complications, as well as postoperative infections; and it will reduce health care costs. Thus, its implementation is of value for both patients and society. However, day surgery calls for good perioperative care, enabling rapid recovery to send patients safely home after a few hours following the end of surgery/anaesthesia. Shortening anaesthesia time, avoiding unnecessary anaesthetic exposure, has several potential benefits, including avoiding unnecessary cardiovascular depression, since there is a miss-match between anaesthetic depression and stimuli, thus requiring vasoactive support, improving early recovery, and reducing the amount of anaesthetic used.
The aim of the present study was to compare surgical scrub and sterile covering before vs. after induction of anaesthesia. Our hypothesis was that avoiding prolonged anaesthesia by inducing anaesthesia prior to surgical scrubbing and sterile covering would reduce the need for vasoactive medication. Additionally, the study aimed to determine if this different theatre logistic further affect drug doses of anaesthetic agents, post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) time and quality of care.
The study protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Gothenburg Ethical Committee (Dnr. 751-16 scientific secretary Sven Wallerstedt, October 24th 2016).
The study was conducted at Capio Lundby Hospital in Gothenburg, November 2016 – February 2017. Male patients scheduled for elective open hernia repair with a modified Lichtenstein technique under general anaesthesia were requested to participate. Exclusion criteria was severe cardiovascular, respiratory, hepatic or renal disease, and American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) score of >3. Sixty ASA 1–3 patients scheduled for elective open hernia repair, modified Lichtenstein procedure, participated in the study following verbal and written informed consent. These patients were randomised by envelope technique into two groups:
1. Awake group: Surgical scrub and sterile covering before induction of anaesthesia, having the patient awake but sedated.
2. Anesthetised group: Surgical scrub and sterile covering when the patient is asleep, anaesthesia induction and securing airway and start of maintenance has been initiated.
Patients received all medication and care in accordance to routine procedures of the department, apart from the scrubbing and sterile covering. Premedication was with paracetamol and diclofenac.
Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and remifentanil (total intravenous anaesthesia; TIVA). Anaesthesia was adjusted per clinical signs. No EEG-based depth of anaesthesia monitor was used. Patients had local anaesthesia in the wound area during the surgery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis was administered based on risk, assessed by Apfel score.
Patients’ assessment of their experience being awake or anaesthetised during surgical scrub and sterile covering was collected using a postoperative survey. The survey used a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0, unacceptable to 10, fully acceptable) to describe the experience, and the question ‘would you like to have the same care if you needed further surgery?’ (yes/no/I don’t know).
Perioperative observations were collected from the patient case record.
Operating room nurses (n=7) were asked whether they found the surgical scrub and covering acceptable from a patient care perspective (VAS scale 0 not at all – 10 fully acceptable) only for awake patients.
All data is presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD), unless otherwise stated. Differences between groups’ continuous data, e.g. demographics and perioperative observation were assessed by Student’s t-test, and categorical data with Chi-square test. A p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data was analysed with StatView (v1.04) for MAC.
The number of patients studied is based on a power analysis from findings in a pilot study; awake surgical scrub and sterile covering should reduce the need for vasoactive medication. A difference of 10 to 5 mg composite with SD of 6 with a power of 80% would require two groups of patients with 23 each to show a difference p<0.05.
All 60 patients asked for participation accepted and signed informed consent. Assessment of quality of care during surgical scrub and sterile covering was assessed by all 60 patients; three patients were excluded from analysis of anaesthesia and recovery, as the surgery became more extensive than planned or for social reasons, and the patients were kept as inpatients. There were only minor demographic differences between the groups: the mean age of the awake group was 5 years older, but the ASA class was not different (Table 1).
Duration of anaesthesia and time with laryngeal mask airway was shorter in the awake group (Table 2). The amount of propofol and remifentanil required was also lower in the awake group: 10% reduction in propofol and 13% reduction of remifentanil, but this difference in drug amount was not significant. We found however no difference in vasoactive need between groups. There were no differences in early recovery or vital signs, and first pain was reported at similar times in both groups. Time in PACU was shorter for the awake patients (p<0.05), but time to discharge, pain and post-operative nausea and vomiting showed no difference between groups (Table 2).
Data is displayed as the mean (standard deviation), unless otherwise stated.
Anaesthetised (n=30) | Awake/sedated (n=30) | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 58 (16) | 63 (15) | 0.2 |
BMI | 26 (3) | 26 (3) | 0.4 |
ASA, 1/2/3 | 5/18/7 | 9/17/4 | .3 |
Smoking, yes/no | 5/25 | 3/27 | 0.7 |
In total, 27 of the awake patients would undergo surgery using the same logistics, two were indifferent and one was “negative”, while 21 of the anaesthetised patient would like to have the same logistics, and nine were indifferent. The theatre nurses rated patients being awake during surgical scrub and sterile covering as acceptable; 4out of the 7 nurses rated 10(scale 0 -10), while the remaining rated; 1 nurse made a rating of 6 and 2 nurses, both rated the process of washing and dressing as 8 (on the 0 -10 scale). All 7 nurses involved in the patient care considered it feasible to perform surgical scrub and sterile covering before induction of anaesthesia as routine procedure.
Data is displayed as the mean (standard deviation), unless otherwise stated. Two patients in the awake group and one in the anaesthetised group were excluded from analysis, since they were kept as inpatients. Surgery time is defined as the time the patient is being operated on; theatre time is defined as the entrance to theatre to leaving for PACU. LMA, laryngeal mask airway; PACU, post-anaesthesia care unit; VAS, visual analog scale.
We could not prove our hypothesis that sterile washing and dressing before induction of anaesthesia reduced anaesthetic drug usage. But, no difference in need for vasoactive medication was found. We found however that surgical scrub and sterile covering prior to induction of anaesthesia feasible and with a maintained quality of care. We have the experience that theatre nurses in Sweden prefer the patient being asleep while surgical scrubbing and sterile covering is performed is performed. The argument is that it may be distressful for patients if they are awake during preparation, surgical scrubbing and sterile covering. However, in this study, generally patients did not mind being awake, on the contrary some patients gave positive feedback about being awake during preparation. Some nurses also feel that the liquid used for scrubbing may cause a freezing sensation in patients; we did not hear any comments supporting this notion. There are also discussions regarding that awake patients may be at an increased risk for surgical site infections (SSI). In a majority of SSI cases, the pathogen source is the native flora of the patient’s skin and there is no firm evidence that the anaesthetic technique used, i.e. patient being awake or asleep during scrub and sterile covering, should impact the infection risk1,2. Two recent studies in a huge number of patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures did not show any difference between general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia and peripheral blocks3,4.
Washing and dressing after induction prolongs the time of anaesthesia and to titrate optimal depth keeping patient asleep with only merely minor stimulation following induction may cause additional need for vasoactive medications and may prolong recovery. Shortening the duration of anaesthesia and drug doses may be of value, especially for elderly patients. There are studies suggesting that tailoring anaesthesia reduces the risks for cognitive side effects5. We did not follow patients beyond discharge. All our patients had total intravenous anaesthesia; whether use of inhaled anaesthesia for maintenance could further improve emergence, the early recovery, and quality of recovery cannot be assessed from the present study. We found in a previous study that inhaled anaesthesia facilitates early recovery6. We could however not see any reduced need for vasoactive medication, thus our primary hypothesis was negative. We cannot give any firm explanation as to why this occurred, since in the awake group the need for both propofol and remifentanil was reduced.
Theatre turnaround time is of increasing importance. Efforts to improve efficacy has been addressed in several studies. Koenig et al. studied anaesthesia induction when the surgeon was in theatre or not, and its impact on waiting time and unnecessary anaesthesia duration7. They found a significant shortening of anaesthesia time when surgeons were readily available in the theatre. Saha et al. found that transfer of patient to and from theatre has a significant impact on theatre turnaround time8. We found clear logistical benefits associated with the use of local anaesthesia and sedation as compared to general anaesthesia in a previous study9. The benefit of local anaesthesia sedation technique has also been supported by others for vaginal prolapse surgery10,11. Open hernia repair is commonly done under local anaesthesia only12. Thus, avoiding anaesthesia during surgery preparation also seems to be a feasible alternative when patients are undergoing general anaesthesia. The anaesthetised patients were somewhat younger and whether that could have impacted the results, need for vasoactive medication cannot be stated, the ASA profile was however similar between the groups.
There are limitations to our study. We studied only one procedure, elderly male patients scheduled for inguinal hernia repair. We had need for vasoactive medication as the primary study objective; this may not be the optimal choice and the number of patients studied is also relatively few. The number of patients was based on our power analysis from pilot experience. Whether these results are transferable to other procedures needs further studies. Proper information around the importance of scrubbing and covering should be given to patients, and providing light sedation should be done in accordance to a patient’s wish. Whether fine tuning anaesthetic delivery could further impact the results cannot be stated. We could not find studies assessing the surgical scrub and sterile covering impact on quality of care or theatre time events, thus we are not able to truly put our findings into perspective of previous similar results. We still believe that our findings can be of interest and importance as lean operating theatre planning is of growing importance. Further studies are indeed warranted assessing impact of awake scrubbing and sterile covering on quality and efficacy of perioperative care. There are studies looking at different anaesthetic techniques and the use of a holding area for theatre preparation, which show benefits to introducing peripheral blocks before entry to the theatre13.
In conclusion, preparation, surgical scrub and sterile covering, before induction of anaesthesia is feasible, and does not jeopardise quality of care. In addition, it reduces anaesthetic agents need and may thus shorten recovery room stay.
Dataset 1: Demographics, perioperative observations, and response to questionnaire of the patients undergoing surgical scrub and covering pre and post-anaesthesia. doi, 10.5256/f1000research.11965.d16603414
This study has been supported by Capio Lundby Hospital. No external funding or financial support has been received.
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff of the Operating unit, PACU and Postoperative Ward in Capio Lundby Hospital, Gothenburg for help with collecting all data for this study.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Partly
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 2 (revision) 09 Aug 17 |
read | |
Version 1 28 Jun 17 |
read | read |
Click here to access the data.
Spreadsheet data files may not format correctly if your computer is using different default delimiters (symbols used to separate values into separate cells) - a spreadsheet created in one region is sometimes misinterpreted by computers in other regions. You can change the regional settings on your computer so that the spreadsheet can be interpreted correctly.
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)