Alexander B. Stone

Introduction: When used as the primary anesthetic, nerve blocks are not billed as separate procedures. In this scenario, the anesthesia start (AStart) time should include the block procedural time. We measured how often AStart time was documented before the nerve block was placed in the preoperative area, and compared cases where a block team performed the nerve block and cases where the intraoperative anesthesia attending supervised the nerve block. We hypothesized that the involvement of a regional anesthesia team would lead to more accurate documentation of AStart. We also estimated the lost revenue due to inaccurate start time documentation. Methods: The study population were patients undergoing surgery with a peripheral nerve block as the primary anesthetic. For this analysis, AStart occurring less than 10 min before the in-operating room time was defined as potentially inaccurate. Lost potential revenue was estimated by taking the difference between the documented time of local anesthetic administration and the documented AStart time. Results: A total of 745 cases were analyzed. Overall, 439 cases (58%) cases were identified as having potentially inaccurate start times. There were higher rates of inaccurate AStart documentation by the block team (316/482, 65.5%) compared with blocks supervised by the in-room anesthesia attendings (123/263, 46.7%, p<0.001). Overall, the estimated loss in billable revenue during the study period was a total of $70 265. Conclusions: The performance of primary regional anesthesia procedure by a block team increased the incidence of inaccurate documentation and uncaptured potential revenue. There is need for education about accurate nerve block documentation for anesthesiologists, especially when separate teams are used.

Two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials comparing neuraxial anesthesia with general anesthesia for patients undergoing surgical fixation of a hip fracture have sparked interest in the comparison of general and neuraxial anesthesia. These studies both reported non-superiority between general and neuraxial anesthesia in this patient cohort, yet they have limitations, like their sample size and use of composite outcomes. We worry that that if there is a perception among surgeons, nurses, patients and anesthesiologists that general and spinal anesthesia are equivalent (which is not what the authors of the studies conclude), it may become difficult to argue for the resources and training to provide neuraxial anesthesia to this patient population. In this daring discourse, we argue that despite the recent trials, there remain benefits of neuraxial anesthesia for patients who have suffered hip fractures and that abandoning offering neuraxial anesthesia to these patients would be an error.

The frequency of shorter stay spine surgery is increasing. Acute pain is a common barrier to discharge following spine surgery. Long-acting opioid medications like methadone have the potential to provide sustained analgesia when given intraoperatively. Methadone has been effectively used in complex spine surgery, cardiac surgery, and more recently applied to ambulatory procedures. In this article, we summarize the pertinent available literature on the use of intraoperative methadone for spine surgery as well as the recent data on intraoperative methadone for ambulatory surgery. The aim of this perspectives article is to describe the potential opportunities for applying intraoperative methadone to shorter stay spine surgery as well as barriers to more widespread use. While there are currently no trials that have specifically studied methadone for shorter stay spine surgery specifically to date, it is a promising area for future research.