Summary: There is a lack of data about the implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia. To assess patients' preference to be involved in medical decision making and its influence on patient satisfaction, we studied 197 matched pairs (patients and anaesthetists) using two previously validated questionnaires. Before surgery, patients had to decide between general vs regional anaesthesia and, where appropriate, between conventional postoperative pain therapy vs catheter techniques. One hundred and eighty‐six patients (94%) wished to be involved in shared decision making. One hundred and twenty‐two patients (62%) experienced the exact amount of shared decision making that they wanted; 44 (22%) were slightly more involved and 20 (10%) slightly less involved in shared decision making than they desired. Preferences regarding involvement in shared decision making were similar between patients and anaesthetists with mean ( SD ) points of 54.1 (16.2) vs 56.4 (27.6) (p = 0.244), respectively on a 0–100 scale; however, patients were found to have a stronger preference for a totally balanced shared decision‐making process (65% vs 32%). Overall patient satisfaction was high: 88% were very satisfied and 12% satisfied with a mean ( SD ) value of 96.1 (10.6) on a 0–100 scale. Shared decision making is important for providing high levels of patient satisfaction.

Perioperative anxiety is a multifaceted phenomenon that significantly impacts patients undergoing surgical procedures. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and anesthetic management, the psychological burden associated with anesthesia and surgery remains a significant challenge for healthcare providers. Up to 30% of patients suffer from anesthesia-related preoperative anxiety, irrespective of whether the procedure is elective or emergent. Notably, anxiety can adversely affect patient outcomes, including pain management, patient safety, overall quality of care, and patient satisfaction. Addressing perioperative anxiety requires a comprehensive understanding of its causes, assessment tools, and management strategies to ensure optimal perioperative care. This review examines the historical context, incidence, causes, pathophysiology, assessment tools, and current evidence regarding management strategies for anesthesia-related anxiety, and provides an outlook on future directions for research and everyday practice.

Background: Tracheal intubation with neuromuscular blocking agents is associated with a low incidence of minor vocal cord sequelae (8%). The aim of this noninferiority trial was to demonstrate that the frequency of vocal cord sequelae after fiberoptic intubation with a flexible silicone tube without neuromuscular blocking agents was less than 25% (maximum tolerable inferiority). Methods: Two-hundred seventy patients were prospectively randomized to two groups. All intubations were performed by anesthesiologists with extensive experience in fiberoptic and conventional techniques. Fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation consisted of a bolus dose of 2 microg/kg fentanyl; 0.25 ml cocaine instillation, 10%, into nasal canals; cricothyroid injection of 2 ml lidocaine, 1%; bronchoscopy; administration of 0.3 mg/kg etomidate; and advancing a flexible silicone tube after loss of consciousness. Orotracheal intubation was performed with a polyvinyl chloride tube after induction with 2 microg/kg fentanyl, 2 mg/kg propofol, and 0.6 mg/kg rocuronium. Patients were examined by laryngoscopy before surgery, 24 h after surgery, and daily until complete restitution. Postoperative hoarseness was assessed by a standardized interview. Results: The incidence of vocal cord sequelae was 11 out of 130 (8.5%) in the fiberoptic group versus 12 out of 129 (9.3%) in the control group (chi-square = 0.057, df = 1, P = 0.81; upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference: +5.1%). There were no persistent injuries. The incidence of postoperative hoarseness was 4% in both groups. Conclusions: Because fiberoptic intubation without neuromuscular blocking agents is safe regarding vocal cord sequelae, routine use is justified for anesthesiologists experienced in this technique.