Kısa ve Standart Preoperatif Anestezi Değerlendirme Formlarının Anestezi Tekniği ve Komplikasyonları Üzerine Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması

Aim: Preoperative evaluation is essential for anesthesia planning, risk assessment, and perioperative safety. However, the optimal extent of preoperative history-taking in low-risk patients remains debated, particularly in low-risk patients. This study compared the effects of short- versus long-form preoperative history-taking on anesthesia management and perioperative complications in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I patients. Methods: This prospective, randomized observational study included 750 ASA I adult patients undergoing elective surgery at a single center. Participants were randomly assigned to either a short-form (5-question, n = 375) or long-form (26-question, n = 375) preoperative questionnaire. The short-form was developed based on expert consensus. The primary outcome was the duration of preoperative evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the number of consultation requests, anesthesia techniques used, perioperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters, and complication rates. Results: The mean duration of preoperative history-taking was significantly shorter in the short-form group (38.52 ± 7.99 seconds) than in the long-form group (103.17 ± 19.27 seconds; p < 0.001). Consultation requirements were identical (4 patients per group), with no significant differences in anesthesia techniques (p = 0.340), intraoperative complications (p = 0.70), or postoperative complications (p = 0.36). Conclusion: In ASA I patients, the short-form questionnaire is effective in collecting sufficient data and significantly reduces preoperative evaluation time without affecting anesthesia techniques, consultation needs, or complication rates compared to the long-form questionnaire. These findings support the use of concise history-taking protocols in low-risk surgical candidates to enhance clinical efficiency.