This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Herrera, F. J. Articles by Chung, F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Herrera, F. J. Articles by Chung, F. Related Collections Ambulatory Postanesthetic Care Unit Outcomes

---

AMBULATORY ANESTHESIOLOGY

A Systematic Review of Postoperative Recovery Outcomes Measurements After Ambulatory Surgery

From the Department of Anesthesia, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario.

Address correspondence to Jean Wong, MD, FRCPC, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst St., MC 2-405, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 2S8. Address e-mail to jean.wong{at}uhn.on.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mortality and morbidity in ambulatory surgery are rare, and thus the patient's quality of life (i.e., the ability to resume normal activities after discharge home) should be considered one of the principle end-points after ambulatory surgery and anesthesia. We conducted a systematic review of the instruments to measure the quality of recovery of ambulatory surgical patients in order to advise on the selection of appropriate measures for research and quality assurance.

METHODS: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HAPI, PsycINFO, Web of Science Search History, Biosys Previews Search, HealthStar, and ASSIA was performed to identify patient-based outcome measures to assess postoperative recovery from ambulatory anesthesia. The instruments were assessed for eight criteria: appropriateness, reliability, validity, responsiveness, precision, interpretability, acceptability, and feasibility.

RESULTS: Seven articles met the inclusion criteria set for the review. The quality of the identified instruments was variable.

CONCLUSION: Only one instrument, 40-item Quality of recovery score, fulfilled all eight criteria, however this instrument was not specifically designed for ambulatory surgery and anesthesia.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. L. Wu and S. S. Liu Intravenous Lidocaine for Ambulatory Anesthesia: Good to Go or Not So Fast? Anesth. Analg., December 1, 2009; 109(6): 1718 - 1719. [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Murphy, J. W. Szokol, J. H. Marymont, S. B. Greenberg, M. J. Avram, J. S. Vender, S. S. Sherwani, M. Nisman, and V. Doroski Morphine-Based Cardiac Anesthesia Provides Superior Early Recovery Compared with Fentanyl in Elective Cardiac Surgery Patients Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2009; 109(2): 311 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. T. V. Chan, C. C. K. Lo, C. K. W. Lok, T. W. Chan, K. C. Choi, and T. Gin Psychometric Testing of the Chinese Quality of Recovery Score Anesth. Analg., October 1, 2008; 107(4): 1189 - 1195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]