Saporito Andrea, Anselmi Luciano, Borgeat Alain, Aguirre José A
Anesthesiology Service, Bellinzona Regional Hospital, Switzerland.
Division of Anesthesiology, Balgrist University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.
J Clin Anesth. 2016 Aug;32:119-26. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2016.02.017. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
Short-acting regional anesthetics have already been successfully used for peripheral nerve blocks in an ambulatory surgery setting. However, the impact on direct and indirect perioperative costs comparing 2 different short-acting local anesthetics has not been performed yet.
Observational, prospective, case-control, cost-minimization study.
Operating room, regional hospital
One hundred adult American Society of Anesthesiologists status I-III patients scheduled for popliteal block after minor ambulatory foot surgery.
Application of 30 mL chloroprocaine 3% or of 30 mL mepivacaine 1.5% for anesthesia.
Cost-minimization evaluation. Direct and indirect perioperative costs were calculated. Block success, onset time and block duration, patient satisfaction, and unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions after discharge were also assessed.
Onset time (sensory: 4.3 ± 2.4 vs 11.5 ± 3.2 minutes; motor: 7.1 ± 3.7 vs 18.4 ± 4.5 minutes) and block duration (sensory: 105 ± 26 vs 317 ± 46 minutes; motor: 91 ± 25 vs 216 ± 31 minutes) were significantly shorter (P < .001) when chloroprocaine 3% was used. This translated to P < .001, basically due to a faster discharge home 55 ± 1 vs 175 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) in favor of chloroprocaine 3%, without negatively affecting either block efficacy or patients satisfaction. There were no unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions and no complications in the follow-up at 6 weeks.
We conclude that the more expensive chloroprocaine 3% for ambulatory foot surgery can reduce total perioperative costs and reduce length of stay in outpatient patients. Moreover, the saved time and personal resources could be used for additional cases, further increasing the revenues of an ambulatory surgical center.
短效区域麻醉剂已成功用于门诊手术中的周围神经阻滞。然而,比较两种不同短效局部麻醉剂对围手术期直接和间接成本的影响尚未开展。
观察性、前瞻性、病例对照、成本最小化研究。
手术室,地区医院
100例美国麻醉医师协会分级为I-III级的成年患者,计划在足部小门诊手术后行腘窝阻滞。
应用30毫升3%氯普鲁卡因或30毫升1.5%甲哌卡因进行麻醉。
成本最小化评估。计算围手术期直接和间接成本。评估阻滞成功率、起效时间和阻滞持续时间、患者满意度以及出院后计划外门诊就诊或再入院情况。
使用3%氯普鲁卡因时,起效时间(感觉:4.3±2.4分钟对11.5±3.2分钟;运动:7.1±3.7分钟对18.4±4.5分钟)和阻滞持续时间(感觉:105±26分钟对317±46分钟;运动:91±25分钟对216±31分钟)显著缩短(P<.001)。这转化为P<.001,主要是因为回家时间更快(55±1分钟对175±2分钟;P<.001),有利于3%氯普鲁卡因,且对阻滞效果或患者满意度没有负面影响。6周随访期间无计划外门诊就诊或再入院情况,也无并发症。
我们得出结论,门诊足部手术中更昂贵的3%氯普鲁卡因可降低围手术期总成本并缩短门诊患者住院时间。此外,节省的时间和个人资源可用于更多病例,进一步增加门诊手术中心的收入。