Abstract

The practice of anesthesiology is inextricably dependent upon technology. Anesthetics were first made possible, then increasingly safe, and now more scalable and efficient in part due to advances in monitoring and delivery technology. Herein, we discuss salient advances of the last three years in the technology of anesthesiology. Consumer technology and telemedicine have exploded onto the scene of outpatient medicine, and perioperative management is no exception. Preoperative evaluations have been done via teleconference, and copious consumer-generated health data is available. Regulators have acknowledged the vast potential found in the transfer of consumer technology to medical practice, but issues of privacy, data ownership/security, and validity remain. Inside the operating suite, monitoring has become less invasive, and clinical decision support systems are common. These technologies are susceptible to the “garbage in, garbage out” conundrum plaguing artificial intelligence, but they will improve as network latency decreases. Automation looms large in the future of anesthesiology as closed-loop anesthesia delivery systems are being tested in combination (moving toward a comprehensive system). Moving forward, consumer health companies will search for applications of their technology, and loosely regulated health markets will see earlier adoption of next-generation technology. Innovations coming to anesthesia will need to account for human factors as the anesthesia provider is increasingly considered a component of the patient care apparatus.

Highlights

  • The modern practice of anesthesiology is inextricably dependent upon technology

  • closed-loop anesthesia delivery system (CLADS) controlled total intravenous anesthetic (TIVA) infusions have been shown to more tightly regulate depth of anesthesia, shorten recovery time, and reduce sedative agent consumption when compared with standard practice in a meta-analysis[9]

  • The delivery of anesthesia, its preoperative assessments, and postoperative care vary by health system, resource setting, and society

Read more

Summary

18 May 2020

F1000 Faculty Reviews are written by members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty. They are commissioned and are peer reviewed before publication to ensure that the final, published version is comprehensive and accessible. The reviewers who approved the final version are listed with their names and affiliations. Any comments on the article can be found at the end of the article

Introduction
Conclusions
PubMed Abstract
Findings
26. Rosenberg S
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call