Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Office-based anesthesia

  • Chapter
Book cover Handbook of Ambulatory Anesthesia

Abstract

Office surgery is defined as any surgical or invasive procedure performed in a location outside a hospital, hospital outpatient department, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), or other diagnostic and treatment center which results in a patient stay of less than 24 hours. All perioperative care (i.e., preoperative assessment and preparation, operation, and postoperative recovery) is usually performed in a one-operating room (OR) suite within a physician’s office. Generally speaking, office surgical procedures should not result in the loss of more than 10% of estimated blood volume in a patient with normal hemoglobin, should last less than 6 hours, and should not involve major intracranial, intrathoracic, or intra-abdominal operations. They are non-emergent and not life-threatening in nature. By contrast, hospital-based ambulatory surgery units and ASCs are licensed by the state and frequently contain more than one OR and provide services for multiple surgeons. The advantages of office surgery include the following:

  • Lower cost

  • Greater privacy and convenience for the patient

  • More control over surgical scheduling

  • Potential reimbursement advantages to the surgeon

These advantages have led to the proliferation of office surgical procedures since the year 2000.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Morello DC, Colon GA, Fredricks S, Iverson RE, Singer R. Patient safety in accredited office surgical facilities. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;99:1496–1499.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grazer FM, de Jong RH. Fatal outcomes from liposuction: census survey of cosmetic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:436–446.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hoefflin SM, Bornstein JB, Gordon M. General anesthesia in an office-based plastic surgical facility: a report on more than 23,000 consecutive office-based procedures under general anesthesia with no significant anesthetic complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:243–257.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vila H, Soto R, Cantor AB, Mackey D. Comparative outcomes analysis of procedures performed in physician offices and ambulatory surgery centers. Arch Surg. 2003;138:991–995.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Keyes GR, Singer R, Iverson RE, et al. Analysis of outpatient surgery center safety using an internet-based quality improvement and peer review program. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1760–1770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Natof HE. Complications associated with ambulatory surgery. JAMA. 1980;244:1116–1118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Warner MA, Shields SE, Chute CG. Major morbidity and mortality within one month of ambulatory surgery and anesthesia. JAMA. 1993;270:1437–1441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mezei G, Chung F. Return hospital visits and hospital readmissions after ambulatory surgery. Ann Surg. 1999;230:721.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Letts M, Davidson D, Splinter W, Conway P. Analysis of the efficacy of pediatric day surgery. Can J Surg. 2001;44:193–198.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleisher LA, Pasternak R, Barash PG, Anderson G. Safety of outpatient surgery in the elderly: the importance of the patient, system and location of care. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:A1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Florida Board of Medicine Practice Alert. Available at: http://www.doh.state.fl.us/ mqa/medical/info_ACLSrule.pdf. Accessed December 20, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  12. ASA Operating Room Design Manual. Ehrenwerth J, ed. Park Ridge, IL: American Society of Anesthesiologists; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Benumof JL. Permanent loss of cervical spinal cord function associated with interscalene block performed under general anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:1541–1544.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tong NY, Ru HJ, Ling HY, Cheung YC, Meng LW, Chung C. Extracardiac radiofrequency ablation interferes with pacemaker function but does not damage the device [correspondence]. Anesthesiology 2004;Apr;100(4):1041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Owings MF, Kozak LJ. Ambulatory and inpatient procedures in the United States, 1996. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 1998;13:26.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Woodwell DA, Cherry DK. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2002 Summary. Vital Health Stat. 2004;346:328.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hawk ET, Levin B. Colorectal cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:378–391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Inger DB. Colorectal cancer screening. Prim Care. 1999;26:179–187.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Iqbal CW, Chun YS, Farley DR. Colonoscopic perforations: a retrospective review. J Gastrointest Surg. 2005;9:1229–1235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. AAAHC Institute for Quality Improvement. Colonoscopy 2005 Report. Wilmette, IL: Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hansen JJ, Ulmer BJ, Rex DK. Technical performance of colonoscopy in patients sedated with nurse-administered propofol. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:52–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ulmer BJ, Hansen JJ, Overley CA, et al. Propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl for outpatient colonoscopy: administration by nurses supervised by endoscopists. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003;1:425–432.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Song D, Whitten C, White P. Use of remifentanil during anesthetic induction. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:734–628.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Joshi GP, Warner DS, Twersky RS, et al. A comparison of remifentanil and fentanyl adverse effect profile. J Clin Anesth. 2002;14:494.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Apfelbaum JL, Walawander CA, Grascla TH, et al. Eliminating intensive postoperative care in same day surgery patients using short acting anesthetics. Anesthesiology. 2002;97:66–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bitar G, Mullis W, Jacobs W, et al. Safety and efficacy of office based surgery with monitored anesthesia care/sedation in 4778 consecutive plastic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111:150–156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mortero RF, Clark LD, Tolan MM, et al. The effects of small-dose ketamine on propofol sedation: respiration, postoperative mood, perception, cognition, and pain. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:1465–1469.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vallejo MC, Romeo RC, Davis DJ, et al. Propofol-ketamine versus propofol-fentanyl for outpatient laparoscopy: comparison of postoperative nausea, emesis, analgesia, and recovery. J Clin Anesth. 2002;14:426–431.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Trytko R, Werschler WP. Total intravenous anesthesia for office-based laser facial resurfacing. Lasers Surg Med. 1999;25:126–130.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gan TJ, Glass PS, Windsor A. Bispectral index monitoring allows faster emergence and improved recovery. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Florida Board of Medicine Surgical Care Committee Report. January 5, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Iverson RE and the ASPS Task Force on Patient Safety in Office-based Surgery Facilities. Patient Safety in Office Based Surgery. I. Procedures in office based surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:1337–1342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hughes CE. Reduction of lipoplasty risks and mortality: an ASPS survey. Aesthetic Surg. 2001;21:161–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McDevitt NB. Deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis. American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:1923–1928.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Most D, Koslow J, Heller J. Thromboembolism in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115:20e–30e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. De Jong RH, Grazer FM. Perioperative management of cosmetic liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107:1039–1044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Trott SA, Beran SJ, Rohrich RJ, et al. Safety consideration and fluid resuscitation in liposuction: an analysis of 53 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102:2220–2229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kenkel JM, Lipschitz AH, Luby M, et al. Hemodynamic physiology and thermoregulation in liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114:503–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Iverson RE, Lunch DJ, ASPS Committee on Patient Safety. Practice advisory on liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113:1478–1490.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Practice Guidelines for Postanesthetic Care: A report of the ASA Task Force on Post Anesthesia Care. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:742–752.

    Google Scholar 

  41. McHugh GA, Thoms GM. The management of pain following day case surgery. Anesthesia. 2002;57:270–275.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pavlin DJ, Chen C, Penaloza DA. Pain as a complicating recovery and discharge after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:627–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Marcus JR, Few JW, Chao JD, et al. Prevention of emesis in plastic surgery; a randomized prosective study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109:2487–2494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Gan TJ, Meyer T, Apfel CC, et al. Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Apfel CC. A Simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:693.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cepeda MS, Gonzalez F, Granados V, et al. Incidence of nausea and vomiting in outpatients undergoing and general anesthesia. J Clin Anesth. 1996;8:324–328.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Rosenblum M, Weller RS, Conard PL, et al. Ibuprofen provides longer lasting analgesia than fentanyl after laparoscopic surgery. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:255–259.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Barbosa MV, Nahas FX, Ferreira LM. Ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: which is the best dosage for aesthetic plastic surgery. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2004;28:33–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fuji Y, Tanaka H, Toyooka H. The effects of dexamethasone on posantiemetics in female patients. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:913–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of South Florida, Department of Anesthesiology, Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Inc., Tampa, FL, USA

    Hector Vila Jr. MD (Assistant Professor)

  2. Nova Anesthesia Professionals, Villanova, PA, USA

    Meena S. Desai MD (President and CEO)

  3. Department of Anesthesiology, University of South Florida, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

    Rafael V. Miguel MD (Professor)

Authors
  1. Hector Vila Jr. MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Meena S. Desai MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rafael V. Miguel MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn

    Rebecca S. Twersky MD, MPH (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director) (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director)

  2. Ambulatory Surgery Unit, Long Island College Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, 11203, USA

    Rebecca S. Twersky MD, MPH (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director) (Professor and Vice Chair for Research, Medical Director)

  3. Harvard Medical School, USA

    Beverly K. Philip MD (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director) (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director)

  4. Day Surgery Unit, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Beverly K. Philip MD (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director) (Professor of Anaesthesia, Director)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vila, H., Desai, M.S., Miguel, R.V. (2008). Office-based anesthesia. In: Twersky, R.S., Philip, B.K. (eds) Handbook of Ambulatory Anesthesia. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73329-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73329-6_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-73328-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-73329-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation