Perioperative Outcomes After Preoperative Epidural Analgesia in Patients with Hip Fracture Undergoing Surgical Repair: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness and safety of epidural analgesia in the presurgical period in patients with hip fracture undergoing surgical repair. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO systematic reviews registry with the (identifier CRD42019140396). Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing preoperative epidural analgesia with other forms of pain management in patients with a hip fracture. The primary outcomes included perioperative cardiac events and death. Pain, noncardiac complications, and adverse effects were also examined as secondary outcomes. The heterogeneity of the included studies was assessed with the I2 statistic, and a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted once sufficient homogeneity was demonstrated. RESULTS: Four studies, which included a total of 221 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative epidural analgesia resulted in fewer cardiac events, which was a reported outcome in two included studies (relative risk 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.63; I2=0%). Preoperative epidural analgesia was also associated with a decreased perioperative mortality rate in a meta-analysis of two studies (relative risk 0.13; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.98; I2 = 0%). Pain was not pooled because of variability in assessment methods, but preoperative epidural analgesia was associated with reduced pain in all four studies. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative epidural analgesia for hip fracture may reduce perioperative cardiac events and deaths, but the number of included studies in this systematic review was low. More research should be done to determine the benefit of early epidural analgesia for patients with hip fracture.

Opioid-free multimodal analgesia pathway to decrease opioid utilization after cesarean delivery.

AIM: To evaluate an opioid-free multimodal analgesic pathway (MAP) to decrease opioid utilization after cesarean delivery (CD) compared to historic data of our institution prior to using MAP for pain management (pre-MAP). METHODS: The MAP was implemented in three phases from September 2018 to August 2019. Patients received 1000 mg intravenous (IV) acetaminophen with 30 mg IV ketorolac at 0 (arrival time at recovery room), 6, 12 and 18 h of postoperative course. On the 2nd and the 3rd postoperative days, patients were monitored for pain every 6 h by Numeric Pain Intensity Scale (0 = no pain to 10 = severe pain) and administered 600 mg oral ibuprofen for a pain score between 0 and 4, 600 mg oral ibuprofen and/or 650 mg oral acetaminophen for a pain score between 5-6, 1000 mg IV acetaminophen and/or 30 mg of IV or intramuscular ketorolac for a pain score between 7 and 10. Five milligrams of oral oxycodone was reserved for rescue if all protocol options were exhausted. Patients were discharged with 600 mg oral ibuprofen without opioid prescription. Likert surveys measuring patient satisfaction of pain control were administered during phase 3. RESULTS: Inpatient and outpatient opioid consumption rates were significantly decreased from 45%, 18% to 23.8%, 8.5% after MAP implementation (P-value <0.001). More than 90% of patients reported that their pain was well controlled and willing to request the same regimen for a future CD. CONCLUSION: MAP Implementation after CD significantly reduced inpatient and outpatient opioid consumption compared to pre-MAP results while maintaining high patients' satisfaction with pain control.

Preoperative Pain Management: Is Tramadol a Safe Alternative to Traditional Opioids Before Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative opioid use has been associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher rates of prolonged opioid use following lower extremity arthroplasty. Tramadol has been recommended for management of osteoarthritis-related pain; however, outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients taking tramadol in the preoperative period have not been well described. The aim of this study is to examine the effect of preoperative tramadol use on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing elective THA. METHODS: A total of 5304 patients who underwent primary THA for degenerative hip pathology from 2008 to 2014 were identified using the Humana Claims Database. Patients were grouped by preoperative pain management modality into 3 mutually exclusive populations including tramadol, traditional opioid, or nonopioid only. A multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate all postsurgical outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Tramadol users had an increased risk of developing prolonged narcotic use (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; confidence interval [CI], 1.89-2.49; P < .001) following surgery compared to nonopioid-only users. When compared to traditional opioid use, tramadol use was associated with decreased risk of subsequent 90-day minor medical complications (OR, 0.75; CI, 0.62-0.90; P = .002), emergency department visits (OR, 0.70; CI, 0.57-0.85; P < .001), and prolonged narcotic use (OR, 0.43; CI, 0.37-0.49; P < .001). Traditional opioid use significantly increased length of stay by 0.20 days (P = .001) when compared to tramadol use. CONCLUSION: Preoperative tramadol use is associated with prolonged opioid use following THA but is not associated with other postoperative complications. Patients taking tramadol preoperatively appear to have a lower risk of postoperative complications compared to patients taking traditional opioids preoperatively.

Preoperative Pain Management Education: An Evidence-Based Practice Project.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this evidence-based practice project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a preoperative pain management patient education intervention on improving patients' pain management outcomes. DESIGN: The project was conducted in an outpatient general surgery service at a teaching institution for patients undergoing same-day surgery. Intervention patients received one-on-one education on postoperative pain management including how to take medications, managing medication side effects, using nonpharmacologic methods, and reporting inadequate postoperative pain control. Comparison patients received general education from multiple health care providers, and this information may not have been consistent. METHODS: Intervention patients received education at the first preoperative clinic visit. Patients in the intervention and comparison groups completed the Revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire during their first postoperative clinic visit. Results were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test/Wilcoxon rank sum test. FINDINGS: A 12-month project (N = 99) showed statistically significant results (P = .020 and P = .001, respectively) in questions about side effects and whether the patient was encouraged to use nonpharmacologic methods to reduce pain. The intervention group reported the effects of pain on mood (P = .067) and use of nonpharmacologic methods (P = .052); however, these results were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: More intervention patients than comparison patients reported medication side effects and were encouraged to use nonpharmacologic methods for reducing postoperative pain. Intervention patients also reported the effects of pain on mood and the use of nonpharmacologic methods more frequently than comparison patients. Preoperative pain management education may increase patients' knowledge in key areas of postoperative pain management to prevent negative outcomes.

Fascia-iliaca compartment block vs intra-articular hip injection for preoperative pain management in intracapsular hip fractures: A blind, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the fascia-iliaca compartment block and the intra-articular hip injection in terms of pain management and the need for additional systemic analgesia in the preoperative phase of intracapsular hip fractures. METHODS: Patients >65 years old with an intracapsular hip fracture were randomized in this prospective, blind, controlled, parallel trial in a Level-I trauma center. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the fascia-iliaca compartment block (cohort FICB) or the intra-articular hip injection (cohort IAHI) upon admission to the emergency department. The primary outcome was pain relief at 20 min, 12 h, 24 h and 48 h after the regional anesthesia, both at rest and during internal rotation of the fractured limb. The Numeric Rating Scale was used. Residual pain was managed with the same protocol in all patients. Additional analgesic drug administration during the 48 h from admission was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with comparable baseline characteristics were analyzed in this study: the FICB group consisted of 70 subjects, while the IAHI group consisted of 50 subjects. Pain was significantly lower in the IAHI group during movement of the fractured limb at 20 min (p < 0.05), 12 h (p < 0.05), 24 h (p < 0.05) and 48 h (p < 0.05). In the FICB cohort 72.9% of patients needed to take oxycodone, in contrast to 28.6% of the IAHI cohort (p < 0.05). In the FICB cohort 14.09 ± 11.57 mg of oxycodone was administered, while in the IAHI cohort 4.38 ± 7.63 mg (p < 0.05). No adverse events related to either technique were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular hip injection provides better pre-operatory pain management in elder patients with intracapsular hip fractures compared to the fascia-iliaca compartment block. It also reduced the need for supplementary systemic analgesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I.