Perceptions in Orthopedic Surgery on the Use of Cannabis in Treating Pain: A Survey of Musculoskeletal Trauma Patients-Results From the Canadian POSIT Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patient-reported expectations regarding cannabis for pain following musculoskeletal (MSK) trauma and patients' perceptions and attitudes regarding its use. DESIGN: A cross-sectional retrospective survey-based study. SETTING: Three orthopaedic clinics in Ontario (Level-1 trauma center, Level-2 trauma center, rehabilitation clinic). PATIENTS SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult patients presenting to the clinics from January 24, 2018, to March 7, 2018, with traumatic MSK injuries (fractures/dislocations and muscle/tendon/ligament injury) were administered an anonymous questionnaire on cannabis for MSK pain. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Primary outcome measure was the patients' perceived effect of cannabis on MSK pain, reported on a continuous pain scale (0%-100%, 0 being no pain, and 100 unbearable pain). Secondary outcomes included preferences, such as administration route, distribution method, timing, and barriers (lack of knowledge, concerns for side effects/addiction, moral/religious opposition, etc.) regarding cannabis use. RESULTS: In total, 440 patients were included in this study, 217 (49.3%) of whom were female and 222 (50.5%) were male, with a mean age of 45.6 years (range 18-92 years, standard deviations 15.6). Patients estimated that cannabis could treat 56.5% (95% CI 54.0%-59.0%) of their pain and replace 46.2% (95% CI 42.8%-49.6%) of their current analgesics. Nearly one-third (131/430, 30.5%) reported that they had used medical cannabis and more than one-quarter (123/430, 28.6%) used it in the previous year. Most felt that cannabis may be beneficial to treat pain (304/334, 91.0%) and reduce opioid use (293/331, 88.5%). Not considering using cannabis for their injury (132/350, 37.7%) was the most common reason for not discussing cannabis with physicians. Higher reported pain severity (ß = 0.2/point, 95% CI 0.1-0.3, P = 0.005) and previous medical cannabis use were associated with higher perceived pain reduction (ß = 11.1, 95% CI 5.4-16.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: One in 3 orthopaedic trauma patients used medical cannabis. Patients considered cannabis could potentially be an effective option for managing traumatic MSK pain and believed that cannabis could reduce opioid usage following acute musculoskeletal trauma. These data will help inform clinicians discussing medical cannabis usage with orthopaedic trauma patients moving forward.

Perceptions in orthopedic surgery on the use of cannabis in treating pain: a survey of patients with spine pain (POSIT Spine).

BACKGROUND: Back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Despite guidelines discouraging opioids as first-line treatment, opioids remain the most prescribed drugs for back pain. There is renewed interest in exploring the potential medical applications of cannabis, and with the recent changes in national legislation there is a unique opportunity to investigate the analgesic properties of cannabis. METHODS: This was a multi-center survey-based study examining patient perceptions regarding cannabis for spine pain. We included patients presenting with back or neck pain to one of three Orthopedic clinics in Ontario. Our primary outcome was perceived effect of cannabis on back pain, while secondary outcomes were perceptions regarding potential applications and barriers to cannabis use. RESULTS: 259 patients participated in this study, 35.3% (90/255) stating they used cannabis medically. Average pain severity was 6.5/10 ± 0.3 (95% CI 6.2-6.8). Nearly three-quarters were prescribed opioids (73.6%, 148/201), with oxycodone/oxycontin (45.9% 68/148) being the most common, and almost half of (49.3%, 73/148) had used an opioid in the last week. Patients estimated cannabis could treat 54.3% ± 4.0 (95% CI 50.3-58.3%) of their spine pain and replace 46.2% ± 6. 6 (95% CI 39.6-52.8%) of their current analgesics. Age (ß = - 0.3, CI - 0.6-0.0), higher pain severity (ß = 0.4, CI 0.1-0.6) and previous cannabis use (ß = 14.7, CI 5.1-24.4) were associated with a higher perceived effect of cannabis. Patients thought cannabis would be beneficial to treat pain (129/146, 88.4%), and reduce (116/146, 79.5%) or eliminate opioids (102/146, 69.9%). Not considering using cannabis for medical purposes (65/150, 43.3%) was the number one reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Patients estimated medical cannabis could treat more than half of their spine pain, with one in three patients already using medical cannabis. 79% of patients also believe cannabis could reduce opioid usage. This data will help support more research into cannabis for musculoskeletal pain.

Diagnostic Accuracy of SPECT for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study examines the diagnostic accuracy of brain perfusion SPECT for mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42023484636). Five databases were searched for studies evaluating brain perfusion SPECT in adult patients with mTBI (GCS 13-15). Study quality was assessed using a modified QUADAS-2 tool. A meta-analysis was performed to pool proportions of hypoperfusion abnormalities across brain lobes. RESULTS: Of 4735 records, 22 studies (5 longitudinal [40% high quality], 17 cross-sectional [24% high quality]) were included totaling 800 patients (mean age, 37.4 ± 12.6 years; 36.4% female). Meta-analysis of proportions indicated that the frontal lobe most frequently showed hypoperfusion on brain perfusion SPECT (pooled proportion 40.1% [95% confidence interval, 31.2% to 49.8%], 99/254, I2 = 54.5%), followed by the temporal lobe (26.1% [95% confidence interval, 19.9% to 33.6%], 68/254, I2 = 30.7%). Several studies found that hypoperfusion abnormalities were associated with neuropsychological findings. Also, brain perfusion SPECT could detect abnormalities not seen on MRI. Abnormalities in perfusion on brain perfusion SPECT may be more readily detected with a quantitative assessment compared with a visual assessment alone, although there appears to be no consensus on the optimal method for image interpretation. Evidence evaluating the sensitivity and specificity of brain perfusion SPECT for mTBI was limited. Using the GRADE framework, the evidence was rated as low. CONCLUSIONS: Although perfusion abnormalities can be seen in patients with mTBI, commonly in the frontal and temporal lobes, the findings are nonspecific and may derive from various factors. Ultimately, brain perfusion SPECT provides additional information for mTBI, but the final added value for the detection of mTBI is unknown.