Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33616688›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2021

[The anesthesiological questionnaire for patients in the outpatient context : Investigations on patient state of health after outpatient operations using the anesthesiological questionnaire for patients].

M Weber, M Hüppe, E Cavus, H Ocker, K Gerlach

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

M WeberKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Deutschland.
M HüppeKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Deutschland.
E CavusDepartment Anästhesie, MARE Klinikum, Kronshagen, Deutschland.
H OckerDepartment Anästhesie, MARE Klinikum, Kronshagen, Deutschland.
K GerlachKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Deutschland. klausgerlach@me.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe evaluation of German postanesthesia questionnaires is often restricted to inpatient medical care. The anesthesiological questionnaire for patients (ANP) has previously been validated only after medical care of inpatients. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the validity of the ANP in the context of outpatient surgery and anesthesia.

methodsData from 4547 patients (mean age 18-89 years, sex: m/f, 55%/45%), scheduled for ambulatory orthopedic and trauma surgery, were analyzed. All patients received a standard induction of anesthesia with propofol, sufentanil and 4 mg dexamethasone. Maintenance of anesthesia was achieved with a balanced technique comprising volatile anesthesia (either sevoflurane or desflurane) and sufentanil. In addition, patients undergoing operations on the anterior cruciate ligament received a femoral nerve block with 12-15 ml 0.5% ropivacaine. Of the patients 13% remained in hospital overnight as a result of complex operations (combined anterior and posterior cruciate ligament repair, hip arthroscopy and 10% of those undergoing shoulder operations). Before discharge from the recovery room, patients were asked to answer questions with respect to postoperative symptoms 1h after anesthesia (ESNA 19 items), at the time of interview (ABZ 17 items) and about overall patient satisfaction (10 items). These results were matched with the type of procedure and time data from the patient administration system. All data were analyzed descriptively using parametrical tests.

resultsAt both time points, pain in the area of the operation was the predominant symptom (ESNA: 77,1%; ABZ: 74,3%). Pain after shoulder arthroscopy was more severe compared to knee arthroscopy, both with and without repair of the anterior cruciate ligament. Most of the adverse symptoms decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.001) with time, demonstrating progressive recovery of the patient. Patient discomfort was more likely to occur in female than in male patients, and female patients were more likely to be dissatisfied with the progress of recovery. The risk of experiencing adverse symptoms after anesthesia was higher for female than for male patients; this was most apparent for feeling cold (odds ratio, OR 4.08) and nausea and vomiting (OR 3.45). Younger patients (18-40 years) were more likely to express discomfort than both groups of older patients (41-60 years and 61-89 years). Accordingly, younger patients had lower satisfaction levels with respect to both anesthesia and overall perioperative care, and the progress of recovery. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were linked to younger age, female sex, and longer procedure times (>40 min).

conclusionThe individual analyses delivered plausible results, which support the validity of the ANP. The ANP may also be used for assessment of postoperative discomfort and patient satisfaction in the setting of outpatient surgery. In view of the short time interval between the two measurement points, the ANP for outpatients could in future be reduced to a single postoperative questionnaire.

Indexed as

Ambulatory Surgical ProceduresPropofolAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPostoperative Nausea and VomitingPostoperative PainSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultPropofolAnaesthesiological questionnaireOutpatient anesthesiaPatient satisfactionPostoperative complaintsQuality assurance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.