In the last quarter of a century, the backdrop of appropriate ambulatory and office-based surgeries has changed dramatically. Procedures that were traditionally done in hospitals or patients being admitted after surgery are migrating to the outpatient setting and being discharged on the same day, respectively, at a remarkable rate. In the face of this exponential growth, anesthesiologists are constantly being challenged to maintain patient safety by understanding the appropriate patient selection, procedure, and surgical location. Recently published literature supports the trend of higher, more medically complex patients, and more complicated procedures shifting towards the outpatient arena. Several reasons that may account for this include cost incentives, advancement in anesthesia techniques, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, and increased patient satisfaction. Anesthesiologists must understand that there is a lack of standardized state regulations regarding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based surgery (OBS) centers. Current and recently graduated anesthesiologists should be aware of the safety concerns related to the various non-hospital-based locations, the sustained growth and demand for anesthesia in the office, and the expansion of mobile anesthesia practices in the US in order to keep up and practice safely with the professional trends. Continuing procedural ambulatory shifts will require ongoing outcomes research, likely prospective in nature, on these novel outpatient procedures, in order to develop risk stratification and prediction models for the selection of the proper patient, procedure, and surgery location.

There has been an exponential increase in plastic surgery cases over the last 20 years, surging from 2.8 million to 17.5 million cases per year. Seventy-two percent of these cases are being performed in the office-based or ambulatory setting. There are certain advantages to performing aesthetic procedures in the office, but several widely publicized fatalities and malpractice claims has put the spotlight on patient safety and the lack of uniform regulation of office-based practices. While 33 states currently have legislation for office-based surgery and anesthesia, 17 states have no mandate to report patient deaths or adverse outcomes. The literature on office-base surgery and anesthesia has demonstrated significant improvements in patient safety over the last 20 years. In the following review of the proceedings from the PRS Korea 2018 meeting, we discuss several key concepts regarding safe anesthesia for officebased cosmetic surgery. These include the safe delivery of oxygen, appropriate local anesthetic usage and the avoidance of local anesthetic toxicity, the implementation of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocols, multimodal analgesic techniques with less reliance on narcotic pain medications, the use of surgical safety checklists, and incorporating “the patient” into the surgical decision-making process through decision aids.
Anesthesia ; Checklist ; Clothing ; Decision Support Techniques ; Humans ; Korea ; Malpractice ; Oxygen ; Patient Safety ; Plastics ; Seoul ; Surgery, Plastic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The diagnosis of ischemic (ICM) and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) is conventionally determined by the presence or absence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in the setting of a reduced left systolic function. However the presence of CAD may not always indicate that the actual left ventricular (LV) dysfunction mechanism is ischemia, as other non-ischemic etiologies can be responsible. We investigated patterns of myocardial fibrosis using delayed hyperenhancement (DHE) on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in ICM and NICM. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with systolic heart failure who underwent a CMR were prospectively analyzed. The heart failure diagnosis was based on the modified Framingham criteria and LVEF <35%. LV dysfunction was classified as ICM or NICM based on coronary anatomy. RESULTS: A total of 101 subjects were analyzed; 34 were classified as ICM and 67 as NICM. The DHE pattern was concordant with the conventional diagnosis in 27 (79.4%) of the patients with ICM and 62 (92.5%) of the patients with NCIM. A discordant NICM DHE pattern was present in 8.8% of patients with ICM, and an ICM pattern was detected 6.0% of the patients with NICM. Furthermore, 11.8% of the patients with ICM and 1.5% of those with NICM demonstrated a mixed pattern. CONCLUSION: A subset of patients conventionally diagnosed with ICM or NICM based on coronary anatomy demonstrated a discordant or mixed DHE pattern. CMR-DHE imaging can be helpful to determine the etiology of heart failure in patients with persistent LV systolic dysfunction.
Cardiac Imaging Techniques ; Cardiomyopathies* ; Coronary Artery Disease ; Diagnosis ; Fibrosis ; Heart Failure ; Heart Failure, Systolic ; Humans ; Ischemia ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging* ; Prospective Studies

Urologists perform the majority of vasectomies in the United States; however, family medicine physicians (FMPs) perform up to 35%. We hypothesized that differences exist in practice patterns and outcomes between urologists and FMPs. Patients who underwent a vasectomy from 2010 to 2016 were identified. Postvasectomy semen analysis (PVSA) practices were compared between urologists and FMPs, before and after release of the 2012 AUA vasectomy guidelines. From 2010 to 2016, FMPs performed 1435 (35.1%) of all vasectomies. PVSA follow-up rates were similar between the two groups (63.4% vs 64.8%, P = 0.18). Of the patients with follow-up, the median number of PVSAs obtained was 1 (range 1-6) in both groups (P = 0.22). Following the release of guidelines, fewer urologists obtained multiple PVSAs (69.8% vs 28.9% pre- and post-2012, P < 0.01). FMPs had a significant but lesser change in the use of multiple PVSAs (47.5% vs 38.4%, P < 0.01). Both groups made appropriate changes in the timing of the first PVSA, but FMPs continued to obtain PVSAs before 8 weeks (15.0% vs 6.5%, P < 0.01). FMPs had a higher rate of positive results in PVSAs obtained after 8 weeks, the earliest recommended by the AUA guidelines (4.1% vs 1.3%, P < 0.01). Significant differences in PVSA utilization between FMPs and urologists were identified and were impacted by the release of AUA guidelines in 2012. In summary, FMPs obtained multiple PVSAs more frequently and continued to obtain PVSAs prior to the 8-week recommendation, suggesting less penetration of AUA guidelines to nonurology specialties. Furthermore, FMPs had more positive results on PVSAs obtained within the recommended window.
Adult ; Humans ; Male ; Physicians, Family/statistics & numerical data* ; Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data* ; Retrospective Studies ; Urologists/statistics & numerical data* ; Vasectomy/statistics & numerical data* ; Wisconsin