Poor quality of recovery: implications in postoperative health status measured by post-operative quality recovery scale

Author(s):  
Tânia Amaral
2001 ◽  
pp. 281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul S. Myles ◽  
Jennifer O. Hunt ◽  
Helen Fletcher

Author(s):  
Sun-Joon Bai ◽  
Ki-Young Lee ◽  
Sung Soo Kim ◽  
Jung Hwa Hong ◽  
Hoon Jae Nam ◽  
...  

There is a lack of data comparing sugammadex with anticholinesterase for the quality of anaesthesia recovery, especially following a single bolus dose of rocuronium. Thus, we evaluated the influence of reversal with sugammadex or neostigmine on post-operative quality of recovery by using the Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS). A total of 86 patients undergoing trans-pars plana vitrectomy (TPPV) under general anaesthesia were intubated following a single bolus dose of rocuronium (0.6 mg/kg). At the end of surgery, patients were received either neostigmine or sugammadex. The quality of recovery was assessed using the PQRS at 15 minutes and 40 minutes after surgery, and on post-operative day 1. The recovery rate in the physiological domain was higher in the sugammadex group at 15 minutes after surgery (P = 0.02). Though there were no significant differences in the overall cognitive recovery domain, patients in the sugammadex group could recall more numbers in reverse order. However, there were no significant differences between the groups in the other domains of the PQRS. The use of sugammadex may increase the quality of the post-operative physiological recovery at early post-operative periods compared with neostigmine use following a single bolus dose of rocuronium in patients undergoing TPPV with general anaesthesia.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 567 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Sá ◽  
Gabriela Sousa ◽  
Alice Santos ◽  
Cristina Santos ◽  
Fernando José Abelha

<p><strong>Background: </strong>The “Quality of Recovery 15” questionnaire is used for the study of quality recovery after anesthesia. The aim of this study was to validate the Portuguese version of “Quality of Recovery 15” questionnaire.<br /><strong>Material and Methods:</strong> After study approval by the institutional ethics committee, an observational and cohort prospective study was conducted on patients scheduled for elective surgery from June to August 2013. The “Quality of Recovery 15” questionnaire was translated in accordance with available guidelines. The “Quality of Recovery 15” Portuguese version was used before surgery (T0) and 24h postoperatively (T1) on 170 patients. Patients who were unable to give informed consent or had cognitive impairment were excluded. Poor quality of recovery was defined for “Quality of Recovery 15” score at T1 lower than the mean “Quality of Recovery 15”<br />score minus 1 standard deviation. Reliability and observer disagreement was assessed using interclass correlation. Non-parametric tests were used for comparisons.<br /><strong>Results:</strong> There was a negative correlation between “Quality of Recovery 15” score and time spent in the postanesthesia care<br />(ρ = −0.264, p = 0.004) and length of hospital stay (ρ = −0.274, p = 0.004). Thirty-two patients (19%) had poor quality of recovery. Patients with poor quality of recovery had more frequently diabetes mellitus and hypertension and they were taking antidepressants drugs more frequently. Patients with poor quality of recovery were more frequently submitted to combined anesthesia and less frequently to general anesthesia and locoregional anesthesia (p = 0.008). The questionnaire had a good internal consistency and test–retest reliability was good.<br /><strong>Discussion:</strong> The Portuguese version of the “Quality of Recovery 15” showed a good correlation with the original.<br /><strong>Conclusion:</strong> This questionnaire appears to be an accurate and reliable assessment for quality of recovery.</p>


2013 ◽  
Vol 57 (10) ◽  
pp. 1308-1312 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. LINDQVIST ◽  
C. ROYSE ◽  
M. BRATTWALL ◽  
M. WARRÉN-STOMBERG ◽  
JAN JAKOBSSON

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 660-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. ROYSE ◽  
Z. WILLIAMS ◽  
G. YE ◽  
D. WILKINSON ◽  
R. DE STEIGER ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (6) ◽  
pp. 577-583
Author(s):  
Sofia M. Ferraz ◽  
João P. Moreira ◽  
Leonor C. Mendes ◽  
Tania M. Amaral ◽  
Ana R. Andrade ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-772 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. LINDQVIST ◽  
A. GRANSTROM ◽  
A. SCHENING ◽  
H. BJORNE ◽  
J. G. JAKOBSSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document