A Trial of Adding Lung Protective Strategies to Existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Its Effect on Improving Postoperative Lung Function
With this rising popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, it is important to ask if the current and developing pathways are fully comprehensive for the patient's perioperative experience. Many current pathways discuss aspects of care including fluid management, pain m...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of clinical medicine research 2023-03, Vol.15 (3), p.127-132 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | With this rising popularization of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, it is important to ask if the current and developing pathways are fully comprehensive for the patient's perioperative experience. Many current pathways discuss aspects of care including fluid management, pain management, and anti-emetic medication regiments, but few delineate recommendations for lung protective strategies. The hypothesis was that intraoperative lung protective strategies would results in improved postoperative lung function.
One hundred patients at the Medical University of South Carolina undergoing hepatobiliary and colorectal surgeries were randomized to receive intraoperative lung protective techniques or a standard intraoperative ventilation management. Three maximum vital capacity breaths were recorded preoperatively, and postoperatively 30 min, 1 h, and 2 h after anesthesia stop time. Average maximum capacity breaths from all four data collection interactions were analyzed between both study and control cohorts.
There was no significant difference in the preoperative inspiratory capacity between the control and the ERAS group (2,043.3 ± 628.4 mL vs. 2,012.2 ± 895.2 mL; P = 0.84). Additional data analysis showed no statistically significant difference between ERAS and control groups: total average of the inspiratory capacity volumes (1,253.5 ± 593.7 mL vs. 1,390.4 ± 964.9 mL; P = 0.47), preoperative oxygen saturation (97.76±2.3% vs. 98.04±1.7%; P = 0.50), the postoperative oxygen saturation (98.51±1.4% vs. 96.83±14.2%; P = 0.40), and change in inspiratory capacity (95% confidence interval (CI) (-211.2 - 366.6); P = 0.60).
No statistically significant difference in postoperative inspiratory capacities were seen after the implementation of intraoperative lung protective strategies. The addition of other indicators of postoperative lung function like pneumonia incidence or length of inpatient stay while receiving oxygen treatment could provide a fuller picture in future studies, but a higher power will be needed. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1918-3003 1918-3011 |
DOI: | 10.14740/jocmr4871 |