4:00PM  Office-based Gynecologic Procedures
Speaker: Keith Isaacson
, MD, Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School; Medical Director, Minimally Invasive Gynecological Surgery Unit, Newton Wellesley Hospital; Attending Physician, Brigham & Women’s Hospital; Attending Physician, Boston IVF; CIMIT Site Miner, Newton-Wellesley Hospital, kisaacson@partners.org
Moderator: John C. Petrozza, MD, Chief, Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center; Chief, Vincent Reproductive Medicine and IVF Division, jpetrozza@partners.org

Gynecologists are spending more time in the office and less time in the operating room, and today’s residents receive less surgical training than in the past.  More and more surgical procedures are being performed in the doctor’s office instead of in the OR.  The increasing number of office-based procedures necessitates new equipment and new training strategies, both designed specifically for the office setting.                

 

Many factors contribute to the current popularity of office-based gynecologic procedures.  First, performing a procedure in the office as opposed to the OR saves time. According to Dr. Keith Isaacson, of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, an operative hysteroscopy that would take one hour in OR can be completed in around five minutes in the office.  Tubal ligations and endometrial ablations can also be performed efficiently and lucratively in the office.  A second factor that encourages office-based gynecological procedures is their profitability.  Malpractice insurance for a gynecologist who only operates out of an office can cost over $80,000 less than that of an OB/GYN in a hospital, and despite their higher insurance costs, hospital-based gynecologists are paid less per procedure than are office-based practitioners.  Lastly, anecdotal evidence suggests that patients prefer to undergo procedures in the office, rather than in the hospital 

 

Office-based procedures can create health risks if not performed with proper attention to safety.  Fatal problems can arise if doctors and staff are not properly trained, if patients are not selected carefully, and if emergency equipment and drugs are not readily available. 

 

Office-based procedures are not going to go away, so the gynecological community should seek to ensure that they are safe.  Gynecology residents are not currently trained to perform procedures in the office, and these techniques, which are not difficult, should become part of their curriculum.  Guidelines should be established to help gynecologists identify patients who should not be anesthetized in the office, and offices should always be equipped to manage severe emergencies, such as cardiac and respiratory failure.  Finally, surgical equipment designed specifically for the office should be developed. 

Click here to view this presentation


4:30 PM  Office-based Anesthesia 
Moderator: Nathaniel M. Sims
, MD, Founder, Massachusetts General Hospital (SimsLab); affiliated with the MGH Departments of Anesthesia and Critical Care, PHS Biomedical Engineering, CIMIT, and PHS Signature Initiatives / Patient Safety, nsims@partners.org

Overview of Office Based Anesthesia
Fred E. Shapiro, DO, Instructor-in-Anaesthesia, Harvard Medical School; Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, fshapiro@bidmc.harvard.edu

Many office-based procedures require significant anesthesia, which can be risky if not administered properly, and a number of patients have died during surgery from cardiac arrest or malignant hyperthermia.  Many of the victims were healthy people undergoing elective, often cosmetic, procedures.   

Anesthesia in the office is often referred to as the “Wild West of Healthcare” because office-based procedures are sometimes performed without needed safety equipment and because they are poorly regulated.  Ten million office-based procedures were performed in the U.S. in 2005, and four out of five cosmetic procedures are done in the office.  One recent study found that 46 % of the deaths that have occurred during office-based surgery could have been prevented.  Many offices need better monitoring and alarm systems and better equipment, but unfortunately, office-based procedures are not regulated in 28 states. 

 

Many states and professional associations are attempting to use accreditation as a means of ensuring that office-based procedures are performed safely.  Although there is some controversy, certain studies have suggested that procedures not involving general anesthesia performed in accredited facilities are as safe as similar procedures performed in the hospital.  Researchers are currently attempting to create new anesthetics designed specifically for the office.  Dexmedetomidine is a new anesthetic that seems to work effectively for surgeries involving the face.

Click here to view this presentation

Technology Implications of Office-based Anesthesia Safety
Beverly K. Philip, MD, Professor of Anaesthesia, Harvard Medical School; Director, Day Surgery Unit, Brigham and Women's Hospital, bphilip@zeus.bwh.harvard.edu

The office environment is not designed for surgery, yet it is the site of millions of procedures, many performed without an anesthesiologist.  With few regulations in place, practitioners must hold themselves responsible for safety. 

 

It is crucial that all office surgeons have the correct equipment to monitor the anesthetized patient.  Many anesthesia machines used in private practice are old, and guidelines should be established that delineate when machines become obsolete.  Patient information (vital signs, etc.) should be collected and stored in a useful format.  Often, the riskiest time for a patient is right before and right after surgery, when the patient is not necessarily receiving a doctor’s full attention, so improved patient monitoring is needed during these times as well.

 

Above all, the office-based practice should be able to cope with emergencies.  It is not uncommon for small surgeries to lead to dire complications.  All staff must be trained to respond appropriately to an emergency.  Dialing 911 should not be the back-up plan.  The practice must possess emergency equipment.  A defibrillator and a reliable two-way communications device, for example, should always be on hand.  There must be a reliable source of oxygen, a reliable source of suction, emergency drugs, and an electrical generator in case the power fails.  The building must have a clear path of egress for a patient on a stretcher.  Perhaps the greatest danger posed by office-based surgery lies in the presumption that no serious problems will occur.

Click here to view this presentation


Regional Anesthesia in the Office Based Setting

Lisa Warren, MD, Director, Ambulatory Anesthesia, Massachusetts General Hospital Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, lwarren2@partners.org

Regional anesthesia is widely used in ambulatory care but is rarely used in office settings.  It usually results in fewer complications and in quicker patient discharges, but because it can be difficult to administer safely, it seems destined to remain a technique used in the hospital and not in the office.       

 

Of the different types of regional anesthesia, distal blockades, which can be used to numb the upper or lower extremities, would be the easiest to perform in an office.  Spinal and epidural blockades cause more nausea and sometimes cause life-threatening hemodynamic instability.

 

The risks of regional anesthesia should not be downplayed.  It can cause bleeding, infection, nerve damage, and local toxicity, which can be fatal.  Office practitioners have also hesitated to use the technique because they are uncomfortable sending a patient home with an insensate limb, which could be injured if not minded properly.

 

Recent advances have made regional anesthesia safer.  Ultrasound machines now allows doctors to guide anesthesia needles more precisely than in the past.  Biomarkers, such as epinephrine, help them avoid injecting drugs into blood vessels.  Single-enantiomer drugs are replacing racemic mixtures, and these new drugs appear to be safer.  In the past, a patient experiencing toxicity and cardiac arrest was put immediately on a bypass machine, but now, in some cases, a lipid emulsion can be used to help reverse the toxicity.  Despite these advances, the skill and the potentially serious consequences of regional anesthesia preclude its widespread adoption in the office, at least for now.

Click here to view this presentation


Panel discussion – click here to view