Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation with Sensorimotor Training for the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 2 of the Upper Limb Case Report.

This case report describes the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) combined with sensorimotor training (SMT) to treat an individual with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type 2 with allodynia of the right hand/wrist. After the 9-week intervention, there was a clinically meaningful reduction in pain intensity which continued to 3 months after intervention. Further, clinically meaningful improvements in wrist and hand function and allodynia were observed. Although the use of rTMS for CRPS has been reported, this unique report provides valuable insight into the clinical utility of rTMS plus SMT for the treatment of CRPS and related symptoms.

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.

Case report: The feasibility of rTMS with intrathecal baclofen pump for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain following spinal cord injury.

The main objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for the treatment of unresolved neuropathic pain in an individual with spinal cord injury and an intrathecal baclofen pump. A 62-year-old male presented with drug resistant neuropathic pain as a result of a complete spinal cord lesion at T8 level. Pain was classified into four types: pressure pain in the left foot, burning pain in buttocks, burning pain in sternum, and electrical attacks in the trunk. The treatment period involved 6 weeks of rTMS stimulation performed 5 days per week, a 6-week follow up period with no stimulation, and an 8-week top up session period which began 5-weeks after the end of the follow up period. 2004 pulses were delivered at 10Hz over the right-hand representation of the left primary motor cortex at 80% resting motor threshold during each session. Assessments were based on the numerical rating scale (NRS), neuropathic pain scale (NPS), Hamilton Depression and Anxiety rating scales. Following the treatment period there was a 30, 13, and 29% reduction in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain respectively, as reported by the NRS. During this time, electrical attacks were abolished following the third week of treatment. These changes corresponded to a 38% decrease in NPS scores and a 65 and 25% reduction in anxiety and depressions scores respectively. The changes in sternum, buttocks, and left foot pain reported on the NRS persisted for 1 week following treatment. Top up sessions delivered 11 weeks after the end of the treatment period were unsuccessful in reducing pain to the level achieved during the treatment period. A 13% reduction in NPS was seen during these 8-weeks. Anxiety and depression scores decreased 78 and 67% respectively. The frequency of electrical attacks was zero during this time. rTMS stimulation delivered throughout this study did not cause any interference with the functioning of the intrathecal baclofen pump. This case study illustrates that rTMS may be effective at reducing drug resistant neuropathic pain with certain pain types exhibiting greater propensity for change.

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.

Pharmacological Treatment in the Management of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis.

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GH-OA) is a common cause of shoulder pain and is characterized by articular cartilage thinning, glenoid bone loss and deformity, osteophytosis, and other associated changes. The prevalence is estimated to be between 85 and 94% in men and women over the age of 80 years. A diagnosis of GH-OA is established based on clinical history, physical examination, and radiographic assessments. Non-pharmacological treatment options may serve as adjuvants to other therapies and should be incorporated for a more holistic approach to management. Pharmacological treatments include oral agents such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, corticosteroids and antidepressants. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) UK guidelines recommend NSAIDS as the first-line drugs for OA; topical forms of some of these agents can also be used. However, clinical evidence is largely lacking for its use in GH-OA, although patients with other types of OA, especially the knee and hip, are using these products in efforts to relieve joint pain. Intra-articular injections such as platelet-rich plasma, cortisone, and hyaluronic acid are usually used to control symptoms in moderate to advanced arthritis or in non-surgical candidates. Other non-surgical treatment options include suprascapular nerve block and radiofrequency ablation, and these options have been studied on different levels of evidence. Furthermore, all these treatments have their own indications, contraindications, and adverse effects profiles. Surgical treatment of GH-OA is reserved for patients who do not respond to conservative management or who suffer from debilitating symptoms that severely impair their quality of life.Level of Evidence IV, review article.

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.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.