David A Gutman, Victoria Bailey, Phillip Wilson, Andrew Fisher, Christopher A Skorke, Carey Brewbaker, Travis Pecha, Dulaney A Wilson, John Butler
{"title":"在现有的增强术后恢复方案中加入肺保护策略的试验及其对改善术后肺功能的影响。","authors":"David A Gutman, Victoria Bailey, Phillip Wilson, Andrew Fisher, Christopher A Skorke, Carey Brewbaker, Travis Pecha, Dulaney A Wilson, John Butler","doi":"10.14740/jocmr4871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15431,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine Research","volume":"15 3","pages":"127-132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/38/3f/jocmr-15-127.PMC10079370.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Trial of Adding Lung Protective Strategies to Existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Its Effect on Improving Postoperative Lung Function.\",\"authors\":\"David A Gutman, Victoria Bailey, Phillip Wilson, Andrew Fisher, Christopher A Skorke, Carey Brewbaker, Travis Pecha, Dulaney A Wilson, John Butler\",\"doi\":\"10.14740/jocmr4871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine Research\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"127-132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/38/3f/jocmr-15-127.PMC10079370.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4871\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14740/jocmr4871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:随着手术后增强恢复(ERAS)方案的日益普及,重要的是要询问当前和正在发展的途径是否对患者的围手术期体验完全全面。目前许多途径讨论了包括液体管理、疼痛管理和止吐药物治疗在内的护理方面,但很少有关于肺保护策略的建议。假设术中肺保护策略可以改善术后肺功能。方法:在南卡罗来纳医科大学接受肝胆和结直肠手术的100例患者随机接受术中肺保护技术或标准术中通气管理。术前、术后30 min、1 h、2 h分别记录3次最大生命容量呼吸。在研究和对照队列之间分析所有四个数据收集交互产生的平均最大呼吸量。结果:对照组与ERAS组术前吸气量差异无统计学意义(2043.3±628.4 mL vs. 2012.2±895.2 mL;P = 0.84)。其他数据分析显示ERAS组与对照组之间无统计学差异:总平均吸气量(1,253.5±593.7 mL vs. 1,390.4±964.9 mL);P = 0.47),术前血氧饱和度(97.76±2.3% vs. 98.04±1.7%;P = 0.50),术后血氧饱和度(98.51±1.4%∶96.83±14.2%;P = 0.40),吸气量变化(95%置信区间(CI) (-211.2 - 366.6);P = 0.60)。结论:术中肺保护策略实施后,术后吸气量无统计学差异。术后肺功能的其他指标,如肺炎发病率、住院时间等,在未来的研究中可以提供更全面的信息,但需要更大的力量。
A Trial of Adding Lung Protective Strategies to Existing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Its Effect on Improving Postoperative Lung Function.
Background: 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.
Methods: 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.
Results: 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).
Conclusions: 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.