RESUMO
Background: The day of surgery admission (DOSA) has been practiced in surgery for decades, with reports dating as far back as 1909. DOSA policy has potential benefits for the health system and the patient, especially when there is a shortage of health-care resources. Objective: This study aims to compare DOSA and standard prior admission (D-1) among patients who underwent major urological operations. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled a total of 206 patients who did not meet the criteria for day care surgery admission. The patients were divided into two groups: those admitted on the same day of surgery and those admitted the day before surgery. Among the participants, 111 (53.8%) were admitted on the same day, while 95 (46.2%) were admitted the day before surgery. We collected data from the electronic health records of these patients, documenting various variables, including patient demographics, type of surgery, admission type and date, intervention date, length of stay, complications, Clavien-Dindo score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Results: We included a total of 206 patients who were admitted for operations in the urology department. The mean age was 70.5 years, and the majority was males (83.5%). Endoscopic procedures were the most common interventions (68%). The most ASA score for the enrolled patients was 2 (56.2%). DOSA was done for 53.8% of the patients, whereas the remaining patients were admitted 1 day before elective surgery. DOSA patients were significantly younger (P = 0.025), had a higher proportion of ASA score 1 (12.7%) and ASA score 3 (26.4%), had significantly fewer postoperative complications (P = 0.002), and had statistically significantly a shorter length of stay (P < 0.001) compared to D-1 admission patients. Conclusion: In our study, DOSA patients were younger, had a lower prevalence of comorbidities, utilized anticoagulants less frequently, experienced fewer complications, and had significantly shorter hospital stays. Since the DOSA policy is safe and has a lower financial and economic burden on the health-care system, we recommend more urological and surgical centers to implement it.
RESUMO
Objectives: The objective is to evaluate the efficacy of the continuous wound infusion (CWI) with Ropivacaine (naropeine 2 mg/ml) on postoperative pain, analgesics consumption, and bowel function in renal transplantation patients. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study trial including 79 patients who underwent renal transplantation. Patients were separated into two groups (catheter or without catheter). We identified 52 (65.8%) patients who received catheter wound infusion during the first 48 h postoperatively. On the other hand, 27 (34.1%) patients received standard without catheter anesthetic technique. Catheter wound infusion was achieved through a 12 cm catheter, inserted subcutaneously after abdominal closure. The catheter was placed above the external oblique aponeurosis. All postoperative data were examined to evaluate the first postoperative 48 h. This study aims to assess three variables: postoperative pain analysis through a visual analog scale, analgesics consumption, and bowel function. Results: The overall score of the three variables was studied. Regarding pain assessment, we have determined that the group of patients with catheter scored better than patients without catheter with borderline significance (66.3 vs. 61.2 consecutively; P = 0.0843). An early bowel function was noted in patients with catheters on the 2nd postoperative day (P = 0.0209). Moreover, patients without catheter consumed more painkillers with nonsignificant difference (P = 0.2499). Conclusion: Patients with catheter showed earlier bowel function than the noncatheter group on the 2nd postoperative day. The catheter group had better pain evaluation.
