ABSTRACT
Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in thoracic surgery have been demonstrated to impact length of stay (LOS), complication rates, and postoperative opioid use. However, ERAS protocols for minimally invasive lung resections have not been well described. Given most lung resections are now performed minimally invasively, there is a gap in the literature regarding the efficacy of ERAS protocols in this setting. In this study, we analyzed patient outcomes following implementation of an ERAS protocol for minimally invasive lung resections. Methods: Outcome data was retrospectively collected for 442 patients undergoing minimally invasive lung resections between January 1st, 2015 and October 26th, 2021. Patients were divided into either a pre-ERAS (n=193) or ERAS (n=249) group. Primary outcomes included LOS, postoperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission status, 30-day hospital readmissions, and 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included common postoperative complications required for the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database. Results: We observed an overall decrease in median LOS (4.0 vs. 3.0 days, P=0.030) and ICU admission status (15% vs. 7.6%, P=0.020) after implementation of our ERAS protocol. The difference in LOS was significantly lower for anatomic lung resections, but not non-anatomic resections. There was no difference in 30-day readmissions and a 0% mortality rate in both groups. Overall, there was a low complication rate that was similar between groups. Conclusions: The implementation of an ERAS protocol led to decreased LOS and decreased ICU admission in patients undergoing minimally invasive lung resection. Process standardization optimizes performance by providers by decreasing decision fatigue and improving decision making, which may contribute to the improved outcomes observed in this study.
ABSTRACT
Perioperative anaphylaxis is rare but potentially life-threatening. Although the most common causative agents are muscle relaxants and antibiotics, there have been several case reports of sugammadex-induced anaphylactic reactions. Though most cases of perioperative anaphylaxis present after induction, sugammadex anaphylaxis presents at the end of the case, sometimes in unmonitored situations such as after extubation or during transport to the recovery unit. Here we report a case of suspected sugammadex-induced anaphylaxis that led to cardiac arrest. We emphasize that vigilance is required when a high dose of sugammadex is used for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: With the advancement of robotic surgery, some thoracic surgeons have been slow to adopt to this new operative approach, in part because they are un-scrubbed and away from the patient while operating. Aiming to allay surgeon concerns of intra-operative emergencies, an insitu simulation-based clinical system's test (SbCST) can be completed to test the current clinical system, and to practice low-frequency, high-stakes clinical scenarios with the entire operating room (OR) team. METHODS: Six different OR teams completed an insitu SbCST of an intra-operative pulmonary artery injury during a robot-assisted thoracic surgery at a single tertiary care center. The OR team consisted of an attending thoracic surgeon, surgery resident, anesthesia attending, anesthesia resident, circulating nurse, and a scrub technician. This test was conducted with an entire OR team along with study observers and simulation center staff. Outcomes included the identified latent safety threats (LSTs) and possible solutions for each LST, culminating in a complete failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). A Risk Priority Number (RPN) was determined for each LST identified. Pre- and post-simulation surveys using Likert scales were also collected. RESULTS: The six FMEAs identified 28 potential LSTs in four categories. Of these 28 LSTs, nine were considered high priority based on their Risk Priority Number (RPN) with seven of the nine being repeated multiple times. Pre- and post-simulation survey responses were similar, with the majority of participants (94%) agreeing that high fidelity simulation of intra-operative emergencies is helpful and provides an opportunity to train for high-stakes, low-frequency events. After completing the SbCST, more participants felt confident that they knew their role during an intra-operative emergency than their pre-simulation survey responses. All participants agreed that simulation is an important part of continuing education and is helpful for learning skills that are infrequently used. Following the SbCST, more participants agreed that they knew how to safely undock the da Vinci robot during an emergency. CONCLUSIONS: SbCSTs provide an opportunity to test the current clinical system with a low-frequency, high-stakes event and allow medical personnels to practice their skills and teamwork. By completing multiple SbCSTs, we were able to identify multiple LSTs within different OR teams, allowing for a broader review of the current clinical systems in place. The use of these SbCSTs in conjunction with debriefing sessions and FMEA completion allows for the most significant potential improvement of the current system. This study shows that SbCST with FMEA completion can be used to test current systems and create better systems for patient safety.
