Time to recovery after general anesthesia at hospitals with and without a phase I post-anesthesia care unit: a historical cohort study

Purpose There is little knowledge about how hospitals can best handle disruptions that reduce post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) capacity. Few hospitals in Japan have any PACU beds and instead have the anesthesiologists recover their patients in the operating room. We compared postoperative recovery t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Canadian journal of anesthesia 2018-12, Vol.65 (12), p.1296-1302
Hauptverfasser: Thenuwara, Kokila N., Yoshimura, Tatsuya, Nakata, Yoshinori, Dexter, Franklin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose There is little knowledge about how hospitals can best handle disruptions that reduce post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) capacity. Few hospitals in Japan have any PACU beds and instead have the anesthesiologists recover their patients in the operating room. We compared postoperative recovery times between a hospital with (University of Iowa) and without (Shin-yurigaoka General Hospital) a PACU. Methods This historical cohort study included 16 successive patients undergoing laparoscopic gynecologic surgery with endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia, at each of the hospitals, and with the hours from OR entrance until the last surgical dressing applied ≥ two hours. Postoperative recovery times, defined as the end of surgery until leaving for the surgical ward, were compared between the hospitals. Results The median [interquartile range] of recovery times was 112 [94-140] min at the University of Iowa and 22 [18-29] min at the Shin-yurigaoka General Hospital. Every studied patient at the University of Iowa had a longer recovery time than every such patient at Shin-yurigaoka General Hospital (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, P < 0.001). The ratio of the mean recovery times was 4.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.05 to 5.91; P < 0.001) and remained comparable after controlling for surgical duration (5.33; 95% CI, 3.66 to 7.76; P  
ISSN:0832-610X
1496-8975
DOI:10.1007/s12630-018-1220-1