Enhanced recovery protocols in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Enhanced recovery protocols (ERP) have been shown to improve patient outcomes and is now regarded as standard of care in elective surgical setting. However, the literature addressing the use of ERP in trauma and emergency abdominal surgery (EAS) is limited and heterogenous. A scoping review was conducted to comprehensively assess the literature on ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS. METHODS: Three bibliographic databases were searched for studies addressing ERP in trauma laparotomy and EAS. We extracted the study characteristics including study design, country, year, surgical procedures, ERP components used, and outcomes. Reporting was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: After screening of 1631 articles for eligibility, 39 studies were included in the review. There has been an increase in the number of articles in the field, with 44% of the identified studies published between 2020 and 2022. Fourteen different protocols were identified, with varying components for each operative phase (preoperative; 29, intraoperative; 20, postoperative; 27). The majority of the studies addressed the effectiveness of ERP on clinical outcomes (31/39: 79%). Only two studies (5%) included purely trauma populations. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on ERP implementations in the EAS populations were published across a range of countries, with improved outcomes. However, a clear gap in ERP research on trauma laparotomy was identified. This scoping review indicates that standardization of care through ERP implementation has potential to improve the quality of care in both EAS and trauma laparotomy.

Patients' experiences undergoing cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand patients' experiences undergoing cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to COVID-19, many elective cancer surgeries were delayed creating a massive backlog of cases. Patients' experiences with surgical delays may inform healthcare systems' responses to the backlog of cases and guide preparations for future healthcare emergencies. METHODS: This was a qualitative description study. Patients undergoing general surgery for cancer at two university-affiliated hospitals between March 2020 and January 2021 were invited to one-to-one interviews. Patients were purposefully selected using quota sampling until interviews produced no new information (i.e., thematic saturation). Interviews were conducted using a semi-structured guide and analyzed according to inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included [mean age 64 ± 12.9; male (n = 10); surgical delay (n = 14); cancer sites: breast (n = 8), skin (n = 4), hepato-pancreato-biliary (n = 4), colorectal (n = 2), and gastro-esophageal (n = 2)]. When determining their willingness to undergo surgery, patients weighed the risk of COVID-19 infection against the urgency of their disease. Changes to the hospital environment (e.g., COVID-19 preventative measures) and deviations from expected treatment (e.g., alternative treatments, remote consultations, rescheduled care) caused diverse psychological responses, ranging from increased satisfaction to severe distress. Patients employed several coping strategies to mitigate distress, including eliciting reassurance from care providers, seeking information from unconventional sources, and reframing care interruptions. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in care during the pandemic elicited diverse psychological responses from patients undergoing cancer surgery. Coping was facilitated by consistent communication with providers, emphasizing the importance of patient-centered expectation setting as we prepare for the future within and beyond the pandemic.

S110-Opioid-free analgesia after outpatient general surgery: A qualitative study focused on the perspectives of patients and clinicians involved in a pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-free analgesia (OFA) may mitigate opioid-related harms after outpatient general surgery; however, the comparative effectiveness of this approach should be assessed in robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Undertaking an RCT on OFA raises important practical concerns, including surgeon and patient hesitation regarding pain management without opioids. We conducted a qualitative study to explore patients' and clinicians' perspectives and experiences with a pilot trial focused on OFA after outpatient general surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing outpatient abdominal and breast procedures were randomized to receive post-discharge opioid analgesia (OA) or OFA. Semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians involved in the trial were conducted to elicit personal perspectives and experiences. Purposive sampling for maximum variation was used to recruit participants with diverse characteristics. Transcribed interviews were assessed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ten patients (5 abdominal, 5 breast) and 10 clinicians (6 surgeons, 2 anesthesiologists, 2 nurses) were interviewed. Five major themes emerged: readiness for trial engagement, pre-trial thoughts about the interventions, postoperative pain experiences, intervention acceptability, and trial refinement. Most patients were open to OFA. Clinicians expressed willingness to prescribe OFA, particularly after less invasive procedures and when using peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs). Concerns were raised regarding the adequacy of pain control and side effects of non-opioid drugs (e.g., NSAID-induced bleeding, kidney injury). Overall, participants were enthusiastic about the trial and recognized its relevance; clinicians praised the study design and organization; and patients valued the use of electronic questionnaires. Suggestions for improvements included preventing potential bias arising from the use of PNBs (i.e., via standardization or stratification) and reducing patient burden (i.e., decreasing postoperative questionnaires). CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians who participated in a pilot RCT generally accept the clinical equipoise between OA versus OFA after outpatient general surgery and recognize the need for methodologically robust trials to inform evidence-based analgesia prescribing.

Feasibility of Prospectively Comparing Opioid Analgesia With Opioid-Free Analgesia After Outpatient General Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. Objective: To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has contributed to the current opioid crisis; however, the value of prescribing opioids at surgical discharge remains uncertain. We aimed to estimate the extent to which opioid prescribing after discharge affects self-reported pain intensity and adverse events in comparison with an opioid-free analgesic regimen. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, Biosis, and CINAHL from Jan 1, 1990, until July 8, 2021. We included multidose randomised controlled trials comparing opioid versus opioid-free analgesia in patients aged 15 years or older, discharged after undergoing a surgical procedure according to the Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity definition (minor, moderate, major, and major complex). We screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials) in duplicate. The primary outcomes of interest were self-reported pain intensity on day 1 after discharge (standardised to 0-10 cm visual analogue scale) and vomiting up to 30 days. Pain intensity at further timepoints, pain interference, other adverse events, risk of dissatisfaction, and health-care reutilisation were also assessed. We did random-effects meta-analyses and appraised evidence certainty using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations scoring system. The review was registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42020153050). FINDINGS: 47 trials (n=6607 patients) were included. 30 (64%) trials involved elective minor procedures (63% dental procedures) and 17 (36%) trials involved procedures of moderate extent (47% orthopaedic and 29% general surgery procedures). Compared with opioid-free analgesia, opioid prescribing did not reduce pain on the first day after discharge (weighted mean difference 0·01cm, 95% CI -0·26 to 0·27; moderate certainty) or at other postoperative timepoints (moderate-to-very-low certainty). Opioid prescribing was associated with increased risk of vomiting (relative risk 4·50, 95% CI 1·93 to 10·51; high certainty) and other adverse events, including nausea, constipation, dizziness, and drowsiness (high-to-moderate certainty). Opioids did not affect other outcomes. INTERPRETATION: Findings from this meta-analysis support that opioid prescribing at surgical discharge does not reduce pain intensity but does increase adverse events. Evidence relied on trials focused on elective surgeries of minor and moderate extent, suggesting that clinicians can consider prescribing opioid-free analgesia in these surgical settings. Data were largely derived from low-quality trials, and none involved patients having major or major-complex procedures. Given these limitations, there is a great need to advance the quality and scope of research in this field. FUNDING: The Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Excessive prescribing after surgery has contributed to a public health crisis of opioid addiction and overdose in North America. However, the value of prescribing opioids to manage postoperative pain after surgical discharge remains unclear. We propose a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the extent to which opioid analgesia impact postoperative pain intensity and adverse events in comparison to opioid-free analgesia in patients discharged after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be searched for multi-dose randomised-trials examining the comparative effectiveness of opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge. Studies published from January 1990 to July 2019 will be targeted, with no language restrictions. The search will be re-run before manuscript submission to include most recent literature. We will consider studies involving patients undergoing minor and major surgery. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, assess eligibility, extract data and evaluate risk of bias. Our main outcomes of interest are pain intensity and postoperative vomiting. Study results will be pooled using random effects models. When trials report outcomes for a common domain (eg, pain intensity) using different scales, we will convert effect sizes to a common standard metric (eg, Visual Analogue Scale). Minimally important clinical differences reported in previous literature will be considered when interpreting results. Subgroup analyses defined a priori will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. Risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The quality of evidence for all outcomes will be evaluated using the GRADE rating system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since this is a systematic review of published studies. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Further knowledge dissemination will be sought via public and patient organisations focussed on pain and opioid-related harms.

Preventing opioid prescription after major surgery: a scoping review of opioid-free analgesia.

BACKGROUND: Excessive opioid prescribing after surgery has been recognised as a contributor to the current crisis of opioid addiction and overdose. Clinicians may potentially tackle this crisis by using opioid-free postoperative analgesia; however, the scientific literature addressing this approach is sparse and heterogeneous, thereby limiting robust conclusions. A scoping review was conducted to systematically map the extent, range, and nature of the literature addressing postoperative opioid-free analgesia. METHODS: Eight bibliographic databases were searched for studies addressing opioid-free analgesia after a major surgery. We extracted the study characteristics, including design, country, year, surgical procedure(s), and interventions. Results were organised thematically according to surgical specialty and targeted phase of recovery: in hospital (early recovery, ≤24 h after operation; intermediate recovery, >24 h) and post-discharge (late recovery). Reporting was according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for scoping reviews. RESULTS: We identified 424 studies addressing postoperative opioid-free analgesia. The number of studies conducted in countries where the opioid crisis is primarily focused was remarkably low (USA, n=11 [3%]; Canada, n=5 [1%]). Many RCTs compared opioid-free vs opioid analgesia during hospital stay (n=117), but few targeted analgesia post-discharge (n=8). Studies were predominantly focused on procedures in orthopaedic, general, and gynaecological/obstetric surgery. Limited attention has been directed towards non-pharmacological pain interventions. We did not identify knowledge synthesis studies (i.e. systematic reviews and meta-analyses) focused on the comparative effectiveness of opioid-free vs opioid analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids remain a mainstay analgesic for managing pain after surgery, but alternative analgesia strategies should not be overlooked. This scoping review indicates numerous opportunities for future research targeting opioid-free postoperative analgesia. REVIEW REGISTRATION: http://www.researchregistry.com; ID: reviewregistry576.