Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia Protocol for Lumpectomy Patients Results in Superior Postoperative Pain Control.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine if lumpectomy patients who received perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia reported less pain when compared with those who received traditional opioid-based care. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing lumpectomy who received an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol [no opioids group (NOP)] was compared with a large cohort of patients who received traditional care [opioids group (OG)]. In-hospital and discharge opioids were compared using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: Overall, 1153 patients underwent lumpectomy: 634 patients received the protocol (NOP), and 519 patients did not (OG). Median pain scores were significantly lower in the NOP cohort when compared with the OG cohort the day after surgery (2 vs. 0, p < 0.001) and the week after surgery (1 vs. 0, p < 0.001). NOP patients were significantly less likely to report severe pain (7-10 on a 10-point scale) the day after surgery compared with OG patients (15.7% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.004). Patients in the NOP cohort were discharged with a median of zero OMEs (range 0-150), while patients in the OG were discharged with a median of 90 OMEs (range 0-360; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia protocol for lumpectomy patients resulted in superior pain control without a routine opioid prescription. Surgeons can improve their own patients' outcomes while addressing the larger societal issue of the opioid crisis by adopting similar protocols that decrease the quantity of opioids available for diversion.

Obese Patients Who Receive an Opioid-Sparing Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocol are at Increased Risk of Persistent Pain After Breast Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obese patients are at increased risk of persistent pain and chronic opioid dependence after surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol in breast surgery patients to determine whether multimodal analgesia was effective for both obese and non-obese patients. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing breast surgery who received an opioid-sparing ERAS protocol was compared with patients who did not receive ERAS, including a historical cohort. Pain scores were compared with respect to body mass index (BMI). Obesity was defined as BMI ≥ 30, and moderate to severe pain was defined as 4-10 of a 10-point scale. Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: A combined contemporary and historical cohort of 1353 patients underwent lumpectomy and mastectomy without reconstruction. The present analysis comprises 622 patients with pain scores who did and did not receive ERAS between 2015 and 2018. The two groups were demographically similar. The day after surgery, those who received ERAS reported lower rates of moderate to severe pain, regardless of BMI (obese: 46.3% vs. 21.8%, p < 0.001; non-obese: 36.3% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.002). One week after surgery, obese patients who received ERAS had higher rates of persistent pain compared with non-obese patients (18.6% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: An opioid-sparing ERAS protocol utilizing multimodal analgesia significantly improved postoperative pain control for obese and non-obese patients. However, it appears that obese patients are still at relatively greater risk for persistent pain after surgery.

Perceptions of traditional healing for mental illness in rural Gujarat.

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant toll of mental illness on the Indian population, resources for patients often are scarce, especially in rural areas. Traditional healing has a long history in India and is still widely used, including for mental illnesses. However, its use has rarely been studied systematically. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the perspective of patients, their families, and healthy community members toward faith healing for mental illness, including the type of interventions received, perceptions of its efficacy, and overall satisfaction with the process. We also sought to explore the range of care received in the community and investigate possibilities for enhancing mental health treatment in rural Gujarat. METHODS: We interviewed 49 individuals in July 2013 at Dhiraj General Hospital and in 8 villages surrounding Vadodara. A structured qualitative interview elicited attitudes toward faith healing for mental illnesses and other diseases. Qualitative analysis was performed on the completed data set using grounded theory methodology. FINDINGS: Subjects treated by both a doctor and a healer reported they overwhelmingly would recommend a doctor over a healer. Almost all who were treated with medication recognized an improvement in their condition. Many subjects felt that traditional healing can be beneficial and believed that patients should initially go to a healer for their problems. Many also felt that healers are not effective for mental illness or are dishonest and should not be used. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects were largely dissatisfied with their experiences with traditional healers, but healing is still an incredibly common first-line practice in Gujarat. Because healers are such integral parts of their communities and so commonly sought out, collaboration between faith healers and medical practitioners would hold significant promise as a means to benefit patients. This partnership could improve access to care and decrease the burden of mental illness experienced by patients and their communities.