RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Surgical procedures on obese patients are dramatically increasing worldwide over the past few years. In this review, we discuss the physiopathology of predominantly respiratory system in obese patients, the importance of preoperative evaluation, preoxygenation and intraoperative positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration to prevent pulmonary complications and the optimization of airway management and oxygenation to reduce or prevent postoperative respiratory complications. RECENT FINDINGS: Many patients are coming to preoperative clinic with medication history of glucagon-like-peptide 1 agonists ( GLP-1) agonists and it has raised many questions regarding Nil Per Os (NPO)/perioperative fasting guidelines due to delayed gastric emptying caused by these medications. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) has come up with guiding document to help with such situations. Ambulatory surgery centers are doing more obesity cases in a safe manner which were deemed unsafe at one point . Quantitative train of four (TOF) monitoring, better neuromuscular reversal agents and gastric ultrasounds seemed to have made a significant impact in the care of obese patients in the perioperative period. SUMMARY: Obese patients are at higher risk of perioperative complications, mainly associated with those related to the respiratory function. An appropriate preoperative evaluation, intraoperative management, and postoperative support and monitoring is essential to improve outcome and increase the safety of the surgical procedure.
Assuntos
Anestesia , Obesidade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias , Humanos , Obesidade/complicações , Obesidade/fisiopatologia , Anestesia/métodos , Anestesia/efeitos adversos , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/prevenção & controle , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Respiração com Pressão Positiva/métodos , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/métodos , Manuseio das Vias Aéreas/efeitos adversosRESUMO
Reportedly, clinicians of all kinds are experiencing alarming rates of burnout, and its prevalence among anesthesia providers is high. We examined burnout in a large academic anesthesia department with a commonly used questionnaire, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, which provides scores on two scales, "exhaustion" and "disengagement." We examined differences in scores between exhaustion and disengagement and their prevalences. All N = 415 staff members of the department were requested to complete the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and N = 130 (31%) did so. The mean ± standard deviation was 2.52 ± 0.51 (range, 1.13 to 3.75) for exhaustion and 2.27 ± 0.52 (range, 1.13 to 3.63) for disengagement. The mean for exhaustion exceeded that for disengagement by 0.25 ± 0.42 (range, -1.25 to 1.25), t(129)=6.68, p < 0.0001 by paired t test. Mean ratings exceeded the midpoint (2.5) between the "burned out" and "not burned out" ends of the rating scale for 49% of respondents for exhaustion, but only 30% for disengagement. More respondents (N = 87, 67%) had a higher mean for exhaustion than disengagement than the opposite pattern (N = 28, 22%), M = 29.5, p < 0.0001 by sign test. Thus, burnout symptoms were common but reflected more in exhaustion than disengagement. Literature review suggested that the difference between the exhaustion and disengagement means that we found was larger than typical, but not unusual, for health-care-related groups, and typical for other groups. Future studies should clarify circumstances under which exhaustion exceeds disengagement and vice versa, both in anesthesia and other fields.
