Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 11989067

Anesthesia systems.

Abstract

Anesthesia systems are used to induce general anesthesia during surgery. In addition, the systems track anesthetic agent and gas concentrations, as well as the patient's condition, using physiologic and multigas monitors. For this Update Evaluation, we present our findings for four newly evaluated models from two manufacturers and summarize our findings for the two previously evaluated models that are still on the market. (Our earlier Evaluations were published in the May-June 1996 and January 1998 issues of Health Devices.) As in the previous Evaluations, our ratings are based largely on the degree of system integration, the suitability of the systems for various types of procedures, and cost. When equipped with the appropriate monitors, all the systems can deliver anesthesia effectively and can meet the minimum monitoring requirements of general surgery. While no system met all our criteria, any limitations of the systems can easily be overcome by the purchaser. We rate two models Preferred. One provides performance and features similar to the other evaluated systems at a significantly lower cost. The second offers exceptional flexibility in meeting monitoring requirements. Three models are rated Acceptable, and the remaining model is rated Acceptable (with Conditions). It is Acceptable only if it is equipped to supply air as an inspired gas.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

2002. Anesthesia systems.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11989067/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

The employment of an iterative design process to develop a pulmonary graphical display.

OBJECTIVE: Data representations on today's medical monitors need to be improved to advance clinical awareness and prevent data vigilance errors. Simply building graphical displays does not ensure an improvement in clinical performance because displays have to be consistent with the user's clinical processes and mental models. In this report, the development of an original pulmonary graphical display for anesthesia is used as an example to show an iterative design process with built-in usability testing. DESIGN: The process reported here is rapid, inexpensive, and requires a minimal number of subjects per development cycle. Three paper-based tests evaluated the anatomic, variable mapping, and graphical diagnostic meaning of the pulmonary display. MEASUREMENTS: A confusion matrix compared the designer's intended answer with the subject's chosen answer. Considering deviations off the diagonal of the confusion matrix as design weaknesses, the pulmonary display was modified and retested. The iterative cycle continued until the anatomic and variable mapping cumulative test scores for a chosen design scored above 90% and the graphical diagnostic meaning test scored above 75%. RESULTS: The iterative development test resulted in five design iterations. The final graphical pulmonary display improved the overall intuitiveness by 18%. The display was tested in three categories: anatomic features, variable mapping, and diagnostic accuracy. The anatomic intuitiveness increased by 25%, variable mapping intuitiveness increased by 34%, and diagnostic accuracy decreased slightly by 4%. CONCLUSION: With this rapid iterative development process, an intuitive graphical display can be developed inexpensively prior to formal testing in an experimental setting.

Anesthesia, General↗