Opioid reduction and enhanced recovery in orthopaedic surgery (OREOS): a protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Knee arthritis is a leading cause of limited function and long-term disability in older adults. Despite a technically successful total knee arthroplasty (TKA), around 20% of patients continue to have persisting pain with reduced function, and low quality of life. Many of them continue using opioids for pain control, which puts them at risk for potential long-term adverse effects such as dependence, overdose and risk of falls. Although persisting pain and opioid use after TKA have been recognised to be important issues, individual strategies to decrease their burden have limitations and multi-component interventions, despite their potential, have not been well studied. In this study, we propose a multi-component pathway including personalized pain management, facilitated by a pain management coordinator. The objectives of this pilot trial are to evaluate feasibility (recruitment, retention, and adherence), along with opioid-free pain control at 8 weeks after TKA. METHODS: This is a protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial using a 2-arm parallel group design. Adult participants undergoing unilateral total knee arthroplasty will be considered for inclusion and randomised to control and intervention groups. Participants in the intervention group will receive support from a pain management coordinator who will facilitate a multicomponent pain management pathway including (1) preoperative education on pain and opioid use, (2) preoperative risk identification and mitigation, (3) personalized post-discharge analgesic prescriptions and (4) continued support for pain control and recovery up to 8 weeks post-op. Participants in the control group will undergo usual care. The primary outcomes of this pilot trial are to assess the feasibility of participant recruitment, retention, and adherence to the interventions, and key secondary outcomes are persisting pain and opioid use. DISCUSSION: The results of this trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive trial for the implementation of a multicomponent pain pathway to improve pain control and reduce harms using a coordinated approach, while keeping an emphasis on patient centred care and shared decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered in Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04968132).

Reducing rebound pain severity after arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia and interscalene block: a two-centre randomized controlled trial of pre-emptive opioid treatment compared with placebo.

PURPOSE: Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. METHODS: After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. CONCLUSION: Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien qu'un bloc interscalénique à injection unique fournisse une analgésie postopératoire précoce efficace après une chirurgie de l'épaule, les patient·es peuvent ressentir une « douleur de rebond ¼ lorsque le bloc se résorbe. Notre objectif était de déterminer si l'hydromorphone orale (2 mg) administrée six heures après une injection unique de bloc interscalénique pour une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule entraînait une réduction cliniquement significative de la gravité de la douleur de rebond. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation des comités d'éthique de la recherche, nous avons mené une étude de supériorité dans deux centres, en groupes parallèles, à double insu, randomisée et contrôlée par placebo. Les patient·es ont reçu un bloc interscalénique préopératoire, une anesthésie générale et de l'hydromorphone ou un placebo six heures après le bloc. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le pire score de douleur au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, mesuré sur une échelle d'évaluation numérique de 11 points (0 à 10). RéSULTATS: Au total, 73 personnes ont participé à l'étude et ont été aléatoirement assignées au groupe hydromorphone ou au groupe placebo. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative dans le score moyen (écart type) de la pire douleur dans les 24 heures entre les groupes hydromorphone et placebo (6,5 [2,4] vs 5,9 [2,3]; différence moyenne, 0,6; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, −0,5 à 1,8). De même, nous n'avons trouvé aucune différence significative dans la trajectoire de la douleur, la consommation d'opioïdes ou l'incidence de nausées et vomissements entre les groupes. Le temps moyen jusqu'à la pire douleur était de 14,6 heures, et le temps moyen jusqu'à la première analgésie de secours était de 11,3 heures après le bloc interscalénique. CONCLUSION: L'hydromorphone 2 mg administrée six heures après le bloc interscalénique n'a pas réduit la gravité de la douleur de rebond postopératoire par rapport au placebo chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); enregistrée le 19 octobre 2016.

Use of Psychedelics for Pain: A Scoping Review.

Chronic pain is a public health concern that affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally. Conventional therapeutic agents including opioid and non-opioid analgesics have been associated with adverse side effects, issues with addiction, and ineffective analgesia. Novel agents repurposed to treat pain via different mechanisms are needed to fill the therapeutic gap in chronic pain management. Psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide and psilocybin (the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms) are thought to alter pain perception through direct serotonin receptor agonism, anti-inflammatory effects, and synaptic remodeling. This scoping review was conducted to identify human studies in which psychedelic agents were used for the treatment of pain. Twenty-one articles that assessed the effects of psychedelics in treating various pain states were included. The present scarcity of clinical trials and small sample sizes limit their application for clinical use. Overall, psychedelics appear to show promise for analgesia in patients with certain headache disorders and cancer pain diagnoses. Future studies must aim to examine the combined effects of psychotherapy and psychedelics on chronic pain.

Preoperative assessment of postoperative delirium: a cross-sectional study of patients and anesthesiologists in Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate 1) patient- and anesthesiologist-reported rates of postoperative delirium (POD) risk discussion during preoperative meetings, 2) patients' and anesthesiologists' ratings of the importance of POD, and 3) predictors of patient-reported discussion of POD risk during preoperative meetings. METHODS: In this multicentre two-part cross-sectional survey study, patients ≥ 65 yr scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac surgery completed a five-minute survey after preoperative anesthesia consultation. Patients were asked about their perception of POD importance, and whether they discussed or were assessed for POD risk. Anesthesiologists were surveyed using self-administered surveys circulated via institutional email lists. Anesthesiologists were asked about the frequency of POD risk assessment and discussion in older adults, tools used, and perception of POD-screening barriers. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve (of 510 approached) patients (50% male; mean age, 73 yr) and 267 anesthesiologists (of 1,205 invited via e-mail) participated in this study conducted in five Canadian hospitals. Postoperative delirium screening and discussion was reported by 88/412 (22%) patients and 229/267 (86%) anesthesiologists. Postoperative delirium was rated as "somewhat-extremely" important by 64% of patients. A previous history of delirium, higher education, the number of daily medications, and longer surgical duration were associated with POD discussion. On average, anesthesiologists rated the importance of POD at 8/10, and 42% ranked "patient risk factors" as the top reason prompting discussion. CONCLUSION: The combined evaluation of patients' and anesthesiologists' perspectives provides valuable information on preoperative POD screening and risk assessment, and highlights areas for improvement in the current practice. Most factors we identified to be associated with higher odds of POD discussion are recognized risk factors of POD.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à évaluer 1) les taux de discussion concernant le risque de delirium postopératoire (DPO) déclarés par les patient·es et les anesthésiologistes lors des rencontres préopératoires, 2) les évaluations des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes de l'importance de DPO, et 3) les prédicteurs d'une discussion telle que rapportée par les patient·es sur le risque de DPO pendant les rencontres préopératoires. MéTHODE: Dans ce sondage transversal multicentrique en deux parties, les patient·es ≥ 65 ans devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente ont rempli un sondage de cinq minutes après la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire. Les patient·es ont été interrogé·es sur leur perception de l'importance du DPO et si leur risque de DPO avait été discuté ou évalué. Des sondages auto-administrés ont été distribués aux anesthésiologistes via les listes de courriels institutionnelles. Ce sondage interrogeait les anesthésiologistes quant à la fréquence de l'évaluation et de la discussion des risques de DPO chez les personnes âgées, aux outils utilisés et à la perception des obstacles au dépistage de DPO. RéSULTATS: Quatre cent douze (des 510 personnes approchées) patient·es (50 % d'hommes; âge moyen, 73 ans) et 267 anesthésiologistes (sur 1205 invité·es par courriel) ont participé à cette étude menée dans cinq hôpitaux canadiens. Le dépistage et la discussion sur le delirium postopératoire ont été signalés par 88/412 (22 %) des patient·es et 229/267 (86 %) des anesthésiologistes. Le delirium postopératoire a été jugé « assez ­ extrêmement ¼ important par 64 % des patient·es. Des antécédents de delirium, des études supérieures, le nombre de médicaments quotidiens et une durée chirurgicale plus longue ont été associés à la discussion sur le DPO. En moyenne, les anesthésiologistes ont évalué l'importance du DPO à 8/10, et 42 % ont classé les « facteurs de risque liés au/à la patient·e ¼ comme la principale raison suscitant la discussion. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation combinée des points de vue des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes fournit des informations précieuses sur le dépistage préopératoire des DPO et l'évaluation des risques, et met en évidence les domaines à améliorer dans la pratique actuelle. La plupart des facteurs que nous avons identifiés comme étant associés à des probabilités plus élevées de discussion sur le DPO sont des facteurs de risque reconnus de DPO.

The role of preoperative opioid use in shoulder surgery-A systematic review.

Background: Emerging evidence suggests preoperative opioid use may increase the risk of negative outcomes following orthopedic procedures. This systematic review evaluated the impact of preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgery with respect to preoperative clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and postoperative dependence on opioids. Methods: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to April, 2021 for studies reporting preoperative opioid use and its effect on postoperative outcomes or opioid use. The search, data extraction and methodologic assessment were performed in duplicate for all included studies. Results: Twenty-one studies with a total of 257,301 patients were included in the final synthesis. Of which, 17 were level III evidence. Of those, 51.5% of the patients reported pre-operative opioid use. Fourteen studies (66.7%) reported a higher likelihood of opioid use at follow-up among those used opioids preoperatively compared to preoperative opioid-naïve patients. Eight studies (38.1%) showed lower functional measurements and range of motion in opioid group compared to the non-opioid group post-operatively. Conclusion: Preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgeries is associated with lower functional scores and post-operative range of motion. Most concerning is preoperative opioid use may predict increased post-operative opioid requirements and potential for misuse in patients. Level of evidence: Level IV, Systematic review.

Role of patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain: a comprehensive narrative review.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE: Patient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success. FINDINGS: Among 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0-30) and 7 (0-56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Evidence-based consensus guidelines on patient selection and trial stimulation for spinal cord stimulation therapy for chronic non-cancer pain.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Opioid versus Nonopioid Analgesia for Craniotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the use of intraoperative opioid analgesia, postoperative pain is often reported by patients undergoing craniotomies. Opioids also cause undesirable side effects in neurosurgical patients. Hence, the role of nonopioid analgesia has been explored for craniotomies in recent years. METHODS: This systematic review evaluated evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioid and nonopioid analgesia during craniotomies regarding postoperative pain, recovery, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 10,459 records obtained by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases, 6 RCTs were included. No difference was observed in pain scores between opioid and nonopioid analgesia at 1 and 24 hours after surgery: mean difference (MD), 1.11 units; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.16 to 2.38, P = 0.09 and MD, -0.06 units; 95% CI, -1.14 to 1.01, P = 0.91, respectively. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter with opioids but was not statistically significant (MD, -84.77 minutes; 95% CI, -254.65 to 85.11; P = 0.33). Postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk = 1.60; 95% CI, 0.96-2.66; P = 0.07) was similar but shivering (relative risk = 2.01; 95% CI, 1.09-3.71; P = 0.03) was greater in the opioid group than nonopioid group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no important differences in clinical outcomes between the groups in our review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was rated low for most outcomes. Available evidence does not suggest superiority of intraoperative nonopioid over opioid analgesia for postoperative pain in patients undergoing craniotomy. More studies are needed to firmly establish the role of nonopioid intraoperative analgesics as an alternative to opioids in this population.

Opioid versus non-opioid analgesia for spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Opioids are the primary analgesics used in patients undergoing spine surgery. Postoperative pain is common despite their liberal use and so are opioid-associated side effects. Non-opioid analgesics are gaining popularity as alternative to opioids in spine surgery. METHODS: This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding opioid and non-opioid intraoperative analgesia and their influence on immediate postoperative pain and adverse events in spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 10,459 records were obtained by searching Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and six randomized controlled trials were included. Differences in postoperative pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups were not significant at 1 h: 4 studies, mean difference (MD) = 0.65 units, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.12 to 1.41], p = 0.10, but favored non-opioid at 24 h after surgery: 3 studies, MD = 0.75 units, 95%CI [0.03 to 1.46], p = 0.04. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter (MD = -45.06 min, 95%CI [-72.50 to -17.62], p = 0.001), and morphine consumption during first 24 h after surgery was higher in opioid compared to non-opioid group (MD = 4.54 mg, 95%CI [3.26 to 5.82], p < 0.00001). Adverse effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (Relative risk (RR) = 2.15, 95%CI [1.37 to 3.38], p = 0.0009) and shivering (RR = 2.52, 95%CI [1.08 to 5.89], p = 0.03) were higher and bradycardia was lower (RR = 0.35, 95%CI [0.17 to 0.71], p = 0.004) with opioid analgesia. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment is low for studied outcomes. Available evidence supports intraoperative non-opioid analgesia for overall postoperative pain outcomes in spine surgery. More research is needed to find the best drug combination and dosing regimen. Prospero Registration: CRD42020209042.

Opioid reduction and enhanced recovery in orthopaedic surgery (OREOS): A feasibility randomized controlled trial in knee replacement patients.

Background: Total knee arthroplasties are the second most common surgery in Canada. Most patients recover well, but 20% or more still suffer from persistent pain and opioid use. Though opioids are an important part of perioperative pain management, their potential for long-term adverse effects is well recognized. Limiting opioids may be insufficient to overcome the issue of opioid overuse. Pain and opioid use are highly linked, so an effective alternative needs to address both issues. Objectives: The principal objective of this pilot trial is to assess the feasibility. The clinical objectives are to determine the effects of a multicomponent care pathway on opioid-free pain control, persisting pain and opioid use, functional knee outcomes, quality of life, and return to function. Methods: We will include adult patients scheduled for primary elective total knee arthroplasty. Patients in the intervention group will undergo a multicomponent intervention pathway that will be facilitated by an intervention coordinator linking each patient and their surgical/ perioperative team. The interventional pathway will include (1) preoperative education on pain and opioid use, (2) preoperative risk identification and mitigation using cognitive behavioral skills, (3) personalized postdischarge analgesic prescriptions, and (4) continued support for pain control and recovery up to 8 weeks. Patients in the control group will receive the usual care at their institution. Discussion: The overarching goal is to implement and evaluate a coordinated approach to clinical care to improve pain control and reduce harms, with an emphasis on patient-centered care and shared decision making.Trial Registration Number: NCT04968132 (informed consent/ research ethics board statement).

Contexte: L'arthroplastie totale du genou est la deuxième chirurgie la plus courante au Canada. La plupart des patients se rétablissent bien, mais au moins 20 pour cent d'entre eux souffrent encore de douleur persistante et de consommation d'opioïdes. Bien que les opioïdes soient un élément important de la prise en charge périopératoire de la douleur, leur potentiel d'effets indésirables à long terme est bien reconnu. La limitation des opioïdes peut être insuffisante pour surmonter le problème de la surconsommation d'opioïdes. La douleur et la consommation d'opioïdes sont étroitement liées, de sorte qu'une option de rechange efficace doit s'attaquer à ces deux problèmes.Objectifs: L'objectif principal de cet essai pilote est d'évaluer la faisabilité. Les objectifs cliniques sont de déterminer les effets d'une voie de soins à composantes multiples sur la maitrise de la douleur sans opioïdes, la douleur persistante et la consommation d'opioïdes, les résultats fonctionnels du genou, la qualité de vie et le retour à la fonction.Méthodes: Nous inclurons les patients adultes devant subir une arthroplastie primaire totale élective du genou. Les patients du groupe d'intervention seront soumis à une voie d'intervention à composantes multiples qui sera facilitée par un coordonnateur d'intervention reliant chaque patient et son équipe chirurgicale/périopératoire. La voie d'intervention comprendra (1) une éducation préopératoire sur la douleur et la consommation d'opioïdes, (2) la détermination et l'atténuation des risques préopératoires à l'aide de compétences comportementales cognitives, (3) des prescriptions analgésiques personnalisées après la sortie, et (4) un soutien continu pour la maîtrise de la douleur et la récupération pendant une période allant jusqu'à huit semaines. Les patients du groupe témoin recevront les soins habituels à leur établissement.Discussion: L'objectif global est de mettre en œuvre et d'évaluer une approche coordonnée des soins cliniques afin d'améliorer la maitrise de la douleur et réduire les méfaits, en mettant l'accent sur les soins centrés sur le patient et la prise de décision partagée. Numéro d'enregistrement de l'essai : NCT04968132 (consentement éclairé/déclaration du comité d'éthique de la recherche).

Reduction of opioid use after orthopedic surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is one of the biggest public health crises of our time, and overprescribing of opioids after surgery has the potential to lead to long-term use. The purpose of this review was to identify and summarize the available evidence on interventions aimed at reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Embase and Medline from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing interventions aimed at reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery to a control group. We recorded demographic data and data on intervention success, and recorded or calculated percent opioid reduction compared to control. RESULTS: We included 141 studies (20 963 patients) in the review, of which 113 (80.1%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 (4.3%) were prospective cohort studies, 16 (11.4%) were retrospective cohort studies, 5 (3.6%) were case reports, and 1 (0.7%) was a case series. The majority of studies (95 [67.4%]) had a follow-up duration of 2 days or less. Interventions included the use of local anesthetics and/or nerve blocks (42 studies [29.8%]), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (31 [22.0%]), neuropathic pain medications (9 [6.4%]) and multimodal analgesic combinations (25 [17.7%]. In 127 studies (90.1%), a significant decrease in postoperative opioid consumption compared to the control intervention was reported; the median opioid reduction in these studies was 39.7% (range 5%-100%). Despite these reductions in opioid use, the effect on pain scores and on incidence of adverse effects was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: There is a large body of evidence from randomized trials showing the promise of a variety of interventions for reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery. Rigorously designed RCTs are needed to determine the ideal interventions or combination of interventions for reducing opioid use, for the good of patients, medicine and society.

Understanding barriers and facilitators of exercise adherence after total-knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand the perceived patient barriers and facilitators of post-surgical exercise adherence in patients undergoing TKA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used an interpretive description approach. Data was gathered using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Participants were interviewed at 8 weeks post-operatively to capture physical, psychological, social and contextual changes and information. Topics that were explored included participants' experience with physical activity and exercise, motivation to perform physical activity, beliefs that exercise will reduce pain, factors that limit their ability to engage in exercise, and the importance of self-regulation in exercise adherence. RESULTS: This study identified 4 themes within the WHO adherence framework: patient-related factors, condition-related factors, health care system, and social support. In particular, self-regulation, knowledge of exercise, post-operative complications, comorbidities, social support, and lack of guidance from health care providers were identified as personal and environmental characteristics that influence exercise adherence. CONCLUSION: Exercise adherence is a multidimensional, interconnected construct and future research should focus on understanding the factors, particularly health care system, that impact adherence.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONRehabilitation therapists should aim to foster competence and confidence in post-operative rehabilitation by implementing strategies such as positive-reinforcement, goal setting, and increased education regarding the benefits of exercise.Clinical strategies to improve exercise adherence should be implemented both pre-and-post-operatively.Health care providers should clearly discuss post-operative outcomes and expectations (e.g., complications, etc.) with patients prior to surgery.

Post-discharge after surgery Virtual Care with Remote Automated Monitoring-1 (PVC-RAM-1) technology versus standard care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if virtual care with remote automated monitoring (RAM) technology versus standard care increases days alive at home among adults discharged after non-elective surgery during the covid-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 8 acute care hospitals in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 905 adults (≥40 years) who resided in areas with mobile phone coverage and were to be discharged from hospital after non-elective surgery were randomised either to virtual care and RAM (n=451) or to standard care (n=454). 903 participants (99.8%) completed the 31 day follow-up. INTERVENTION: Participants in the experimental group received a tablet computer and RAM technology that measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, and body weight. For 30 days the participants took daily biophysical measurements and photographs of their wound and interacted with nurses virtually. Participants in the standard care group received post-hospital discharge management according to the centre's usual care. Patients, healthcare providers, and data collectors were aware of patients' group allocations. Outcome adjudicators were blinded to group allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up. The 12 secondary outcomes included acute hospital care, detection and correction of drug errors, and pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation. RESULTS: All 905 participants (mean age 63.1 years) were analysed in the groups to which they were randomised. Days alive at home during 31 days of follow-up were 29.7 in the virtual care group and 29.5 in the standard care group: relative risk 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.02); absolute difference 0.2% (95% confidence interval -0.5% to 0.9%). 99 participants (22.0%) in the virtual care group and 124 (27.3%) in the standard care group required acute hospital care: relative risk 0.80 (0.64 to 1.01); absolute difference 5.3% (-0.3% to 10.9%). More participants in the virtual care group than standard care group had a drug error detected (134 (29.7%) v 25 (5.5%); absolute difference 24.2%, 19.5% to 28.9%) and a drug error corrected (absolute difference 24.4%, 19.9% to 28.9%). Fewer participants in the virtual care group than standard care group reported pain at 7, 15, and 30 days after randomisation: absolute differences 13.9% (7.4% to 20.4%), 11.9% (5.1% to 18.7%), and 9.6% (2.9% to 16.3%), respectively. Beneficial effects proved substantially larger in centres with a higher rate of care escalation. CONCLUSION: Virtual care with RAM shows promise in improving outcomes important to patients and to optimal health system function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04344665.

Medical cannabis or cannabinoids for chronic non-cancer and cancer related pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits and harms of medical cannabis and cannabinoids for chronic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Cannabis-Med, Epistemonikos, and trial registries up to January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials of medical cannabis or cannabinoids versus any non-cannabis control for chronic pain at ≥1 month follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed random-effects models meta-analyses and used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 32 trials with 5174 adult patients were included, 29 of which compared medical cannabis or cannabinoids with placebo. Medical cannabis was administered orally (n=30) or topically (n=2). Clinical populations included chronic non-cancer pain (n=28) and cancer related pain (n=4). Length of follow-up ranged from 1 to 5.5 months. Compared with placebo, non-inhaled medical cannabis probably results in a small increase in the proportion of patients experiencing at least the minimally important difference (MID) of 1 cm (on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (VAS)) in pain relief (modelled risk difference (RD) of 10% (95% confidence interval 5% to 15%), based on a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.50 cm (95% CI -0.75 to -0.25 cm, moderate certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally results in a very small improvement in physical functioning (4% modelled RD (0.1% to 8%) for achieving at least the MID of 10 points on the 100-point SF-36 physical functioning scale, WMD of 1.67 points (0.03 to 3.31, high certainty)), and a small improvement in sleep quality (6% modelled RD (2% to 9%) for achieving at least the MID of 1 cm on a 10 cm VAS, WMD of -0.35 cm (-0.55 to -0.14 cm, high certainty)). Medical cannabis taken orally does not improve emotional, role, or social functioning (high certainty). Moderate certainty evidence shows that medical cannabis taken orally probably results in a small increased risk of transient cognitive impairment (RD 2% (0.1% to 6%)), vomiting (RD 3% (0.4% to 6%)), drowsiness (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), impaired attention (RD 3% (1% to 8%)), and nausea (RD 5% (2% to 8%)), but not diarrhoea; while high certainty evidence shows greater increased risk of dizziness (RD 9% (5% to 14%)) for trials with <3 months follow-up versus RD 28% (18% to 43%) for trials with ≥3 months follow-up; interaction test P=0.003; moderate credibility of subgroup effect). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to high certainty evidence shows that non-inhaled medical cannabis or cannabinoids results in a small to very small improvement in pain relief, physical functioning, and sleep quality among patients with chronic pain, along with several transient adverse side effects, compared with placebo. The accompanying BMJ Rapid Recommendation provides contextualised guidance based on this body of evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/3pwn2.

Persistent Incisional Pain after Noncardiac Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, characteristics, impact, and risk factors associated with persistent incisional pain. The hypothesis was that patient demographics and perioperative interventions are associated with persistent pain. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study from 2012 to 2014. This study included patients who were 45 yr of age or older who underwent major inpatient noncardiac surgery. Data were collected perioperatively and at 1 yr after surgery to assess for the development of persistent incisional pain (pain present around incision at 1 yr after surgery). RESULTS: Among 14,831 patients, 495 (3.3%; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) reported persistent incisional pain at 1 yr, with an average pain intensity of 3.6 ± 2.5 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale), with 35% and 14% reporting moderate and severe pain intensities, respectively. More than half of patients with persistent pain reported needing analgesic medications, and 85% reported interference with daily activities (denominator = 495 in the above proportions). Risk factors for persistent pain included female sex (P = 0.007), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), surgery for fracture (P < 0.001), history of chronic pain (P < 0.001), coronary artery disease (P < 0.001), history of tobacco use (P = 0.048), postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (P < 0.001), postoperative continuous nerve block (P = 0.010), insulin initiation within 24 h of surgery (P < 0.001), and withholding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on the day of surgery (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (P < 0.001), endoscopic surgery (P = 0.005), and South Asian (P < 0.001), Native American/Australian (P = 0.004), and Latin/Hispanic ethnicities (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent incisional pain is a common complication of inpatient noncardiac surgery, occurring in approximately 1 in 30 adults. It results in significant morbidity, interferes with daily living, and is associated with persistent analgesic consumption. Certain demographics, ethnicities, and perioperative practices are associated with increased risk of persistent pain.

Cryoanalgesia for postsurgical pain relief in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in pain management, postoperative pain continues to be an important problem with significant burden. Many current therapies have dose-limiting adverse effects and are limited by their short duration of action. This review examines the evidence for the efficacy and safety of cryoanalgesia in postoperative pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was registered in PROSPERO and prepared in accordance with PRISMA. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched until July 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults evaluating perioperatively administered cryoanalgesia for postoperative pain relief. RESULTS: Twenty-four RCTS were included. Twenty studies examined cryoanalgesia for thoracotomy, two for herniorrhaphy, one for nephrectomy and one for tonsillectomy. Meta-analysis was performed for thoracic studies. We found that cryoanalgesia with opioids was more efficacious than opioid analgesia alone for acute pain (mean difference [MD] 2.32 units, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -3.35 to -1.30) and persistent pain (MD 0.81 units, 95 % CI -1.10 to -0.53) after thoracotomy. Cryoanalgesia with opioids also resulted in less postoperative nausea compared to opioid analgesia alone (relative risk [RR] 0.23, 95 % CI 0.06 to 0.95), but there was no difference in atelectasis (RR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.07 to 2.17). CONCLUSION: Heterogeneity in comparators and outcomes were important limitations. In general, reporting of adverse events was incomplete and inconsistent. Many studies were over two decades old, and most were limited in how they described their methodology. Considering the potential, larger RCTs should be performed to better understand the role of cryoanalgesia in postoperative pain management.

Benefits of Transversus Abdominis Plane Block on Postoperative Analgesia after Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing bariatric surgery present unique analgesic challenges, including poorly controlled pain, increased prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea, and opioid-induced respiratory depression. The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) has been demonstrated to be a safe and effective component of multimodal analgesia for a variety of abdominal surgeries. OBJECTIVE: To determine the benefits of the TAP block on postoperative analgesia and recovery in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to April 2020 for studies using TAP block in bariatric surgeries and reporting postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and recovery-related outcomes. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and recovery-related outcomes (e.g., length of stay, time to ambulation). Outcomes were pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (15 RCTs [n = 1410] and 6 nonrandomized studies [n = 1959]) were included. Among RCTs, the TAP block group required fewer opioid rescues (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.42, P < 0.001) (moderate quality); reduced total opioid use over 24 hours (MD -8.33; 95% CI -14.78 to -1.89, P = 0.01); decreased time to ambulation (MD -1.12 hours; 95% CI -1.50 to -0.73, P < 0.001) (high quality); and had significantly lower pain scores at 6 hours (MD -1.52; 95% CI -1.90 to -1.13, P < 0.01) and 12 hours (MD -0.95; 95% CI -1.34 to -0.56, P < 0.001) on a 0-10 pain scale (moderate quality). No difference was observed for nausea and vomiting, or hospital length of stay. Meta-analyzed outcomes from observational studies supported these results, suggesting decreased postoperative pain and opioid consumption. LIMITATIONS: Studies varied with respect to type of surgery and components of comparator multimodal analgesia, likely contributing to heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses by type of comparator group were conducted to address these differences. We were unable to extract data from all trials included due to variability in outcomes reporting, such as non-opioid drugs for postoperative pain management or invalid dosages. Pain-related outcomes may be affected by operative differences leading to variation in visceral pain. Observational studies have their inherent limitations, such as confounding due to lack of participant randomization and intervention blinding, potentially affecting subjective outcomes, such as pain scores, as well as provider-dependent outcomes, such as hospital length of stay. Lastly, there was significant variation of TAP block technique across all studies. CONCLUSION: TAP block is an effective, safe modality that can be performed under anesthesia. It decreases pain, opioid use, and time to ambulation after bariatric surgeries and should be considered in multimodal analgesia for enhanced recovery in this high-risk surgical population.