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.

Cannabis for pain in orthopedics: a systematic review focusing on study methodology

Background: Medical cannabis use is an emerging topic of interest in orthopedics. Although there is a large amount of literature on medical cannabis use for managing various types of pain, few studies have focused on orthopedic conditions. There is little high-quality evidence in core orthopedic areas. The objective of this study was to summarize the literature on the efficacy of cannabis use for pain related to orthopedic conditions. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the use of cannabinoids for pain management in core orthopedic conditions. Two independent reviewers extracted information on reporting quality, risk of bias, drugs, population, control, duration of study, pain outcomes and the authors' conclusions regarding efficacy for pain outcomes. Results: We identified 33 orthopedic studies, including 21 primary studies and 12 reviews. Study quality was generally low to moderate. Six of the included studies had a control group and 15 were noncontrolled studies. Methodologies, drugs and protocols of administration varied greatly across studies. Study conclusions were generally positive in noncontrolled studies and mixed in controlled studies. Studies using higher doses tended to conclude that cannabis use was effective, but the potential for harmful effects may also be increased with higher doses. Conclusion: Variability in the methodologies used in cannabis research makes it challenging to draw conclusions about dosing, routes and frequency of administration. Most of the existing evidence suggests that medical cannabis use is effective, but this efficacy has been demonstrated only when either there is no comparator or cannabis is compared with placebo. Studies using an active comparator have not demonstrated efficacy. Future research should focus on improving study reporting and methodologic quality so that protocols that optimize pain control while minimizing harmful effects can be determined.

Contexte: La consommation de cannabis à des fins médicales est un sujet d'intérêt émergent en orthopédie. Malgré l'existence d'un important corpus de littérature médicale sur l'utilisation du cannabis pour traiter divers types de douleurs, peu d'études ont porté sur les problèmes orthopédiques. On dispose de peu de données probantes de grande qualité relatives aux principaux domaines de l'orthopédie. L'objectif de cette étude était de résumer la littérature sur l'efficacité du cannabis à soulager les douleurs orthopédiques. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique de la littérature sur l'utilisation des cannabinoïdes pour la prise en charge de la douleur associée aux principaux problèmes orthopédiques. Deux examinateurs indépendants ont extrait l'information sur la qualité des rapports, le risque de biais, les médicaments, les populations et groupes témoins, la durée des études, les scores de douleur et les conclusions des auteurs quant à l'efficacité au plan des scores de douleur. Résultats: Nous avons recensé 33 études orthopédiques, dont 21 études primaires et 12 revues. La qualité des études était généralement de faible à moyenne. Six des études incluses étaient contrôlées et 15 ne l'étaient pas. Les méthodologies, les médicaments et les protocoles d'administration variaient grandement d'une étude à l'autre. Les conclusions étaient généralement positives dans les études non contrôlées, et mixtes dans les études contrôlées. Les études qui utilisaient des doses plus fortes avaient tendance à conclure que le cannabis était efficace, mais le risque d'effets négatifs pouvait également être proportionnel à la dose. Conclusion: En raison de la variabilité des méthodologies utilisées dans la recherche sur le cannabis, il est difficile de tirer des conclusions sur la posologie, les voies et la fréquence d'administration. La plupart des preuves disponibles donnent à penser que le cannabis médical est efficace, mais cette efficacité n'a été démontrée que s'il n'y avait pas de comparateur ou si le cannabis était comparé à un placebo. Les études ayant utilisé un comparateur actif n'ont pas fait état d'efficacité. La recherche future devrait veiller à améliorer les rapports et la qualité méthodologique des études afin de déterminer quels protocoles améliorent la maîtrise de la douleur tout en réduisant les effets négatifs.

Injury in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Training.

BACKGROUND: Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ) is a grappling-based martial art that can lead to injuries both in training and in competition. There is a paucity of data regarding injuries sustained while training in BJJ, in both competitive and noncompetitive jiu-jitsu athletes. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that most BJJ practitioners sustain injuries to various body locations while in training and in competition. Our primary objective was to describe injuries sustained while training for BJJ, both in practice and in competition. Our secondary objectives were to classify injury type and to explore participant and injury characteristics associated with wanting to quit jiu-jitsu after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: We conducted a survey of all BJJ participants at a single club in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. We developed a questionnaire including questions on demographics, injuries in competition and/or training, treatment received, and whether the participant considered discontinuing BJJ after injury. RESULTS: A total of 70 BJJ athletes participated in this study (response rate, 85%). Ninety-one percent of participants were injured in training and 60% of competitive athletes were injured in competitions. Significantly more injuries were sustained overall for each body region in training in comparison with competition (P < 0.001). Two-thirds of injured participants required medical attention, with 15% requiring surgery. Participants requiring surgical treatment were 6.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those requiring other treatments, including no treatment (odds ratio [OR], 6.50; 95% CI, 1.53-27.60). Participants required to take more than 4 months off training were 5.5 times more likely to consider quitting compared with those who took less time off (OR, 5.48; 95% CI, 2.25-13.38). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of injury is very high among BJJ practitioners, with 9 of 10 practitioners sustaining at least 1 injury, commonly during training. Injuries were primarily sprains and strains to fingers, the upper extremity, and neck. Potential participants in BJJ should be informed regarding significant risk of injury and instructed regarding appropriate precautions and safety protocols. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians should be aware of the substantial risk of injury among BJJ practitioners and the epidemiology of the injuries as outlined in this article.

A Missed Opportunity in Bone Health: Vitamin D and Calcium Use in Elderly Femoral Neck Fracture Patients Following Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Introduction: Adequate calcium and vitamin D from diet and supplementation is recommended for elderly hip fracture patients. Using data from the multinational hip fracture arthroplasty trial (HEALTH), we determined the proportion of patients who consistently took vitamin D and calcium and which characteristics/prescribing practices were associated with consistency of supplement use. METHODS: HEALTH is a multicenter randomized trial of elderly hip fracture patients treated with hemi-arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Patients were categorized as consistent users, inconsistent users, or nonusers of calcium and vitamin D. We used multinomial regression to determine the characteristics associated with calcium and vitamin D use. RESULTS: 603 HEALTH participants were included in the analysis. 34.7% of patients never took vitamin D within 12 months after surgery, 26.2% took vitamin D inconsistently, and 39.1% took vitamin D consistently. 36.0% of patients never took calcium within 12 months after surgery, 28.4% took calcium inconsistently, and 35.7% took calcium consistently. There was great variation in prescribed/recommended doses. Compared to nonusers, consistent users of the supplements were more likely to be female, North American, prescribed/recommended vitamin D and/or calcium postoperatively, and presented to a facility with comprehensive fragility fracture protocols. CONCLUSIONS: A low proportion of elderly hip fracture patients are consistently taking vitamin D and calcium, which may contribute to poorer bone health. Surgeons should be educated to prescribe/ recommend vitamin D and calcium, institutions should develop comprehensive fragility fracture protocols and patient education strategies to ensure that patients with osteoporosis receive bone health management beyond fracture care.

Hip fracture evaluation with alternatives of total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hip fractures are a leading cause of mortality and disability worldwide, and the number of hip fractures is expected to rise to over 6 million per year by 2050. The optimal approach for the surgical management of displaced femoral neck fractures remains unknown. Current evidence suggests the use of arthroplasty; however, there is lack of evidence regarding whether patients with displaced femoral neck fractures experience better outcomes with total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). The HEALTH trial compares outcomes following THA versus HA in patients 50 years of age or older with displaced femoral neck fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HEALTH is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial where 1434 patients, 50 years of age or older, with displaced femoral neck fractures from international sites are randomised to receive either THA or HA. Exclusion criteria include associated major injuries of the lower extremity, hip infection(s) and a history of frank dementia. The primary outcome is unplanned secondary procedures and the secondary outcomes include functional outcomes, patient quality of life, mortality and hip-related complications-both within 2 years of the initial surgery. We are using minimisation to ensure balance between intervention groups for the following factors: age, prefracture living, prefracture functional status, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) Class and centre number. Data analysts and the HEALTH Steering Committee are blinded to the surgical allocation throughout the trial. Outcome analysis will be performed using a χ(2) test (or Fisher's exact test) and Cox proportional hazards modelling estimate. All results will be presented with 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The HEALTH trial has received local and McMaster University Research Ethics Board (REB) approval (REB#: 06-151). RESULTS: Outcomes from the primary manuscript will be disseminated through publications in academic journals and presentations at relevant orthopaedic conferences. We will communicate trial results to all participating sites. Participating sites will communicate results with patients who have indicated an interest in knowing the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The HEALTH trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00556842).