The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.

Background. The 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) score is widely used to measure pain intensity after surgery. Despite this widespread use, it is unclear what constitutes the minimal clinically important difference (MCID); that is, what minimal change in score would indicate a meaningful change in a patient’s pain status. Methods. We enrolled a sequential, unselected cohort of patients recovering from surgery and used a VAS to quantify pain intensity. We compared changes in the VAS with a global rating-of-change questionnaire using an anchor-based method and three distribution-based methods (0.3 sd, standard error of the measurement, and 5% range). We then averaged the change estimates to determine the MCID for the pain VAS. The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was defined as the 25th centile of the VAS corresponding to a positive patient response to having made a good recovery from surgery. Results. We enrolled 224 patients at the first postoperative visit, and 219 of these were available for a second interview. The VAS scores improved significantly between the first two interviews. Triangulation of distribution and anchor-based methods resulted in an MCID of 9.9 for the pain VAS, and a PASS of 33. Conclusions. Analgesic interventions that provide a change of 10 for the 100 mm pain VAS signify a clinically important improvement or deterioration, and a VAS of 33 or less signifies acceptable pain control (i.e. a responder), after surgery.

Background: Quality of recovery (QoR) after anesthesia is an important measure of the early postoperative health status of patients. The aim was to develop a short-form postoperative QoR score, and test its validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical acceptability and feasibility. Methods: Based on extensive clinical and research experience with the 40-item QoR-40, the strongest psychometrically performing items from each of the five dimensions of the QoR-40 were selected to create a short-form version, the QoR-15. This was then evaluated in 127 adult patients after general anesthesia and surgery. Results: There was good convergent validity between the QoR-15 and a global QoR visual analog scale (r = 0.68, P < 0.0005). Construct validity was supported by a negative correlation with duration of surgery (r = −0.49, P < 0.0005), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (r = −0.41, P < 0.0005), and duration of hospital stay (r = −0.53, P < 0.0005). There was also excellent internal consistency (0.85), split-half reliability (0.78), and test–retest reliability (r _i = 0.99), all P < 0.0005. Responsiveness was excellent with an effect size of 1.35 and a standardized response mean of 1.04. The mean ± SD time to complete the QoR-15 was 2.4 ± 0.8min. Conclusions: The QoR-15 provides a valid, extensive, and yet efficient evaluation of postoperative QoR.

Quality of recovery after anaesthesia is an important measure of the early postoperative health status of patients. We attempted to develop a valid, reliable and responsive measure of quality of recovery after anaesthesia and surgery. We studied 160 patients and asked them to rate postoperative recovery using three methods: a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS), a nine-item questionnaire and a 50-item questionnaire; the questionnaires were repeated later on the same day. From these results, we developed a 40-item questionnaire as a measure of quality of recovery (QoR-40; maximum score 200). We found good convergent validity between QoR-40 and VAS (r = 0.68, P < 0.001). Construct validity was supported by a negative correlation with duration of hospital stay (rho = -0.24, P < 0.001) and a lower mean QoR-40 score in women (162 (SD 26)) compared with men (173 (17)) (P = 0.002). There was also good test-retest reliability (intra-class ri = 0.92, P < 0.001), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93, P < 0.001) and split-half coefficient (alpha = 0.83, P < 0.001). The standardized response mean, a measure of responsiveness, was 0.65. The QoR-40 was completed in less than 6.3 (4.9) min. We believe that the QoR-40 is a good objective measure of quality of recovery after anaesthesia and surgery. It would be a useful end-point in perioperative clinical studies.