Survey of the utilization of regional and general anesthesia in a tertiary teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although the subspecialty of regional anesthesiology has become an important focus during residency training, there are many factors that might influence a resident's experience in regional anesthesia (RA). There are few data examining the utilization of regional techniques in an anesthesiology residency program. We undertook a prospective observational study to determine the frequency and reasons for not choosing RA in cases for which it was considered an option. METHODS: All scheduled operative procedures that were amenable to neuraxial or major peripheral regional anesthetic techniques were surveyed. Data recorded included the type of intraoperative anesthetic used, type of anesthesiology faculty performing the regional block (regional anesthesiologist vs general anesthesiologist), and reasons for not choosing RA when a regional anesthetic technique was feasible. RESULTS: Of the 2301 surgical procedures amenable to a regional technique, 839 (36.5%) involved use of regional anesthetic, and 1462 (63.5%) involved only a general anesthetic. Of the subjects receiving RA, 32% were performed by general anesthesiology faculty, and 68% were performed by regional anesthesiology faculty. The most common type of regional anesthetic performed by the general anesthesiology faculty was neuraxial blockade (95.2%) (vs 52.5% by regional anesthesiology faculty). Of the cases not involving RA, the reasons were anesthesiology related (40%), surgeon related (34%), patient related (12%), and medical contraindication related (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Our prospective observational study suggests that anesthesiology-related reasons may be an important factor for not undertaking these techniques. Although we did not specifically examine the effect on resident education, our study does provide some evidence to support program directors and department chiefs to set up their regional rotations with faculty most likely to perform RA.

Optimal timing of acustimulation for antiemetic prophylaxis as an adjunct to ondansetron in patients undergoing plastic surgery.

We designed this study to evaluate the antiemetic efficacy of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation in combination with ondansetron when applied before, after, or both before and after plastic surgery. A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study design was used to compare three prophylactic acustimulation treatment schedules: preoperative--an active device was applied for 30 min before and a sham device for 72 h after surgery; postoperative--a sham device was applied for 30 min before and an active device for 72 h after surgery; and perioperative--an active device was applied for 30 min before and 72 h after surgery (n = 35 per group). All patients received a standardized general anesthetic, and ondansetron 4 mg IV was administered at the end of surgery. The incidence of vomiting/retching and the need for rescue antiemetics were determined at specific time intervals for up to 72 h after surgery. Nausea scores were recorded with an 11-point verbal rating scale. Other outcome variables assessed included discharge times (for outpatients), resumption of normal activities of daily living, complete antiemetic response rate, and patient satisfaction with antiemetic therapy and quality of recovery. Perioperative use of the ReliefBand significantly increased complete responses (68%) compared with use of the device before surgery only (43%). Median postoperative nausea scores were significantly reduced in the peri- and postoperative (versus preoperative) treatment groups. Finally, patient satisfaction with the quality of recovery (83 +/- 16 and 85 +/- 13 vs 72 +/- 18) and antiemetic management (96 +/- 9 and 94 +/- 10 vs 86 +/- 13) on an arbitrary scale from 0 = worst to 100 = best was significantly higher in the groups receiving peri- or postoperative (versus preoperative) acustimulation therapy. For patients discharged on the day of surgery, the time to home readiness was significantly reduced (114 +/- 41 min versus 164 +/- 50 min; P < 0.05) when acustimulation was administered perioperatively (versus preoperatively). In conclusion, acustimulation with the ReliefBand was most effective in reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting and improving patients' satisfaction with their antiemetic therapy when it was administered after surgery.