Suspected gluteal compartment syndrome: Etiology predicts clinical course, outcomes and resource utilization.

Background: Gluteal Compartment Syndrome (GCS) is a rare subtype of acute compartment syndrome (ACS), complex to diagnose and potentially fatal if left untreated. The incidence of ACS is estimated to be 7.3 per 100,000 in males and 0.7 per 100,000 in females [1-3]. Given its rare occurrence, the incidence of GCS is not well reported. In the case of GCS, the most common etiologies are surgical positioning, prolonged immobilization secondary to substance use or loss of consciousness, and traumatic injury. Clinical findings are pulselessness, pallor, parasthesia, paralysis, and most notably pain out of proportion. Swift diagnosis and treatment are imperative to reduce morbidity and mortality, however the ideal management of GCS is difficult to ascertain given the rare occurrence and variable presentation. Methods: Orthopaedic trauma database at a level 1 trauma center was reviewed to identify patients for whom the orthopaedic service was consulted due to suspicion of gluteal compartment syndrome. This yielded 11 patients between 2011 and 2019. Patients with a measured ΔP greater than 30 upon initial consultation and with a concerning exam requiring monitoring were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, GCS etiology, laboratory values, physical exam findings, pain scores (0-10) and patient outcomes were collected via chart review. Patient demographic and injury characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Prolonged immobilization patients had worse outcomes including longer hospital stays (40.5 days) compared to trauma patients (4.5 days). All adverse medical outcomes recorded including acute renal failure, prolonged neuropathic pain, cardiopulmonary dysfunction were exclusively experienced by prolonged immobilization patients. Conclusions: Our descriptive study demonstrates the bimodal distribution of GCS patients based on etiology. Prolonged immobilization patients have a longer hospital course and more complications. Our study confirms prior reports and provides information that can be used to counsel patients and families appropriately about treatment and recovery following GCS. Level of evidence: IV. Study type: Epidemiological.

Employing machine learning to enhance fracture recovery insights through gait analysis.

This study aimed to explore the potential of gait analysis coupled with supervised machine learning models as a predictive tool for assessing post-injury complications such as infection, malunion, or hardware irritation among individuals with lower extremity fractures. We prospectively identified participants with lower extremity fractures at a tertiary academic center. These participants underwent gait analysis with a chest-mounted inertial measurement unit device. Using customized software, the raw gait data were preprocessed, emphasizing 12 essential gait variables. The data were standardized, and several machine learning models, including XGBoost, logistic regression, support vector machine, LightGBM, and Random Forest, were trained, tested, and evaluated. Special attention was given to class imbalance, addressed using the synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE). Additionally, we introduced a novel methodology to compute the post-injury recovery rate for gait variables, which operates independently of the time difference between the gait analyses of different participants. XGBoost was identified as the optimal model both before and after the application of SMOTE. Before using SMOTE, the model achieved an average test area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.90, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [0.79, 1.00], and an average test accuracy of 86%, with a 95% CI of [75%, 97%]. Through feature importance analysis, a pivotal role was attributed to the duration between the occurrence of the injury and the initial gait analysis. Data patterns over time revealed early aggressive physiological compensations, followed by stabilization phases, underscoring the importance of prompt gait analysis. χ2 analysis indicated a statistically significant higher readmission rate among participants with underlying medical conditions (p = 0.04). Although the complication rate was also higher in this group, the association did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06), suggesting a more pronounced impact of medical conditions on readmission rates rather than on complications. This study highlights the transformative potential of integrating advanced machine learning techniques like XGBoost with gait analysis for orthopedic care. The findings underscore a shift toward a data-informed, proactive approach in orthopedics, enhancing patient outcomes through early detection and intervention. The χ2 analysis added crucial insights into the broader clinical implications, advocating for a comprehensive treatment strategy that accounts for the patient's overall health profile. The research paves the way for personalized, predictive medical care in orthopedics, emphasizing the importance of timely and tailored patient assessments.

Do Transtibial Amputations Outperform Amputations of the Hind- and Midfoot Following Severe Limb Trauma?: A Secondary Analysis of the OUTLET Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare 18-month clinical and patient-reported outcomes between patients with severe lower-limb injuries treated with a transtibial amputation or a hind- or midfoot amputation. Despite the theoretical benefits of hind- and midfoot-level amputation, we hypothesized that patients with transtibial amputations would report better function and have fewer complications. METHODS: The study included patients 18 to 60 years of age who were treated with a transtibial amputation (n = 77) or a distal amputation (n = 17) and who were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter Outcomes Following Severe Distal Tibial, Ankle, and/or Foot Trauma (OUTLET) study. The primary outcome was the difference in Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores, and secondary outcomes included pain, complications, amputation revision, and amputation healing. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between patients with distal versus transtibial amputation in any of the domains of the SMFA: dysfunction index [distal versus transtibial], 31.2 versus 22.3 (p = 0.13); daily activities, 37.3 versus 26.0 (p = 0.17); emotional status, 41.4 versus 29.3 (p = 0.07); mobility, 36.5 versus 27.8 (p = 0.20); and bother index, 34.4 versus 23.6 (p = 0.14). Rates of complications requiring revision were higher for distal amputations but not significantly so (23.5% versus 13.3%; p = 0.28). One distal and no transtibial amputees required revision to a higher level (p = 0.18). A higher proportion of patients with distal compared with transtibial amputation required local surgical revision (17.7% versus 13.3%; p = 0.69). There was no significant difference between the distal and transtibial groups in scores on the Brief Pain Index at 18 months post-injury. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical complication rates did not differ significantly between patients who underwent transtibial versus hind- or midfoot amputation for severe lower-extremity injury. The average SMFA scores were higher (worse), although not significantly different, for patients undergoing distal compared with transtibial amputation, and more patients with distal amputation had a complication requiring surgical revision. Of note, more patients with distal amputation required closure with an atypical flap, which likely contributed to less favorable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Opioid Prescribing Rate for Nonoperative Distal Radius Fractures and Clinician Response to a Clinical Decision Support Alert.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are commonly prescribed for the management of acute orthopedic trauma pain, including nonoperative distal radius fractures. OBJECTIVES: This prospective study aimed to determine if a clinical decision support intervention influenced prescribing decisions for patients with known risk factors. We sought to quantify frequency of opioid prescriptions for acute nonoperative distal radius fractures treated. METHODS: We performed a prospective study at one large health care system. Utilizing umbrella code S52.5, we identified all distal radius fractures treated nonoperatively, and the encounters were merged with the Prescription Reporting with Immediate Medication Mapping (PRIMUM) database to identify encounters with opioid prescriptions and patients with risk factors for opioid use disorder. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine patient characteristics associated with the prescription of an opioid. Among encounters that triggered the PRIMUM alert, we calculated the percentage of encounters where the PRIMUM alert influenced the prescribing decision. RESULTS: Of 2984 encounters, 1244 (41.7%) included an opioid prescription. Age increment is a significant factor to more likely receive opioid prescriptions (p < 0.0001) after adjusting for other factors. Among encounters where the physician received an alert, those that triggered the alert for early refill were more likely to influence physicians' opioid prescribing when compared with other risk factors (p = 0.0088). CONCLUSION: Over 90% of patients (106/118) continued to receive an opioid medication despite having a known risk factor for abuse. Additionally, we found older patients were more likely to be prescribed opioids for nonoperatively managed distal radius fractures.

Effect of Aspirin Versus Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin Thromboprophylaxis on Medication Satisfaction and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after orthopaedic trauma. However, recent evidence suggests that aspirin is similar in efficacy and safety. To understand patients' experiences with these medications, we compared patients' satisfaction and out-of-pocket costs after thromboprophylaxis with aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the PREVENTion of CLots in Orthopaedic Trauma (PREVENT CLOT) trial, conducted at 21 trauma centers in the U.S. and Canada. We included adult patients with an operatively treated extremity fracture or a pelvic or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg of low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) twice daily or 81 mg of aspirin twice daily for thromboprophylaxis. The duration of the thromboprophylaxis, including post-discharge prescription, was based on hospital protocols. The study outcomes included patient satisfaction with and out-of-pocket costs for their thromboprophylactic medication measured on ordinal scales. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 12,211 patients (mean age and standard deviation [SD], 45 ± 18 years; 62% male), 9725 of whom completed the question regarding their satisfaction with the medication and 6723 of whom reported their out-of-pocket costs. The odds of greater satisfaction were 2.6 times higher for patients assigned to aspirin than those assigned to low-molecular-weight heparin (odds ratio [OR]: 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.39 to 2.80; p < 0.001). Overall, the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs for thromboprophylaxis medication were 51% higher for patients assigned to aspirin compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (OR: 1.51; 95% CI: 1.37 to 1.66; p < 0.001). However, patients assigned to aspirin had substantially lower odds of out-of-pocket costs of at least $25 (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.18; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of aspirin substantially improved patients' satisfaction with their medication after orthopaedic trauma. While aspirin use increased the odds of incurring any out-of-pocket costs, it protected against costs of ≥$25, potentially improving health equity for thromboprophylaxis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Are Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons Appropriately Compensated for Treating Acetabular Fractures? An Analysis of Operative Times and Relative Value Units.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the work relative value units (RVUs) attributed per minute of operative time (wRVU/min) in fixation of acetabular fractures, evaluate surgical factors that influence wRVU/min, and compare wRVU/min with other procedures. DESIGN: Retrospective. SETTING: Level 1 academic center. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Two hundred fifty-one operative acetabular fractures (62 A, B, C) from 2015 to 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Work relative value unit per minute of operative time for each acetabular current procedural terminology (CPT) code. Surgical approach, patient positioning, total room time, and surgeon experience were collected. Comparison wRVU/min were collected from the literature. RESULTS: The mean wRVU per surgical minute for each CPT code was (1) CPT 27226 (isolated wall fracture): 0.091 wRVU/min, (2) CPT 27227 (isolated column or transverse fracture): 0.120 wRVU/min, and (3) CPT 27228 (associated fracture types): 0.120 wRVU/min. Of fractures with single approaches, anterior approaches generated the least wRVU/min (0.091 wRVU/min, P = 0.0001). Average nonsurgical room time was 82.1 minutes. Surgeon experience ranged from 3 to 26 years with operative time decreasing as surgeon experience increased ( P = 0.03). As a comparison, the wRVU/min for primary and revision hip arthroplasty have been reported as 0.26 and 0.249 wRVU/min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The wRVUs allocated per minute of operative time for acetabular fractures is less than half of other reported hip procedures and lowest for isolated wall fractures. There was a significant amount of nonsurgical room time that should be accounted for in compensation models. This information should be used to ensure that orthopaedic trauma surgeons are being appropriately supported for managing these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of Humerus Nonunion Surgery in Patients With Initial Operative Fracture Fixation.

OBJECTIVES: To describe outcomes following humerus aseptic nonunion surgery in patients whose initial fracture was treated operatively and to identify risk factors for nonunion surgery failure in the same population. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Eight, academic, level 1 trauma centers. PATIENTS SELECTION CRITERIA: Patients with aseptic humerus nonunion (OTA/AO 11 and 12) after the initial operative management between 1998 and 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Success rate of nonunion surgery. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included (56% female; median age 50 years; mean follow-up 21.2 months). Of 90 aseptic humerus nonunions, 71 (78.9%) united following nonunion surgery. Thirty patients (33.3%) experienced 1 or more postoperative complications, including infection, failure of fixation, and readmission. Multivariate analysis found that not performing revision internal fixation during nonunion surgery (n = 8; P = 0.002) and postoperative de novo infection (n = 9; P = 0.005) were associated with an increased risk of recalcitrant nonunion. Patient smoking status and the use of bone graft were not associated with differences in the nonunion repair success rate. CONCLUSIONS: This series of previously operated aseptic humerus nonunions found that more than 1 in 5 patients failed nonunion repair. De novo postoperative infection and failure to perform revision internal fixation during nonunion surgery were associated with recalcitrant nonunion. Smoking and use of bone graft did not influence the success rate of nonunion surgery. These findings can be used to give patients a realistic expectation of results and complications following humerus nonunion surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Opioid Prescribing for Chronic Musculoskeletal Conditions: Trends over Time and Implementation of Safe Opioid-Prescribing Practices.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed (1) to determine the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool on rate of opioid prescribing and opioid dose for patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions and (2) to identify prescriber and facility characteristics associated with adherence to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain in this population.We conducted an interrupted time series analysis to assess trends in percentage of patients from 2016 to 2020, receiving an opioid and the average opioid dose, as well as the change associated with implementation of the CDS toolkit. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the association between prescriber and facility characteristics and safe opioid-prescribing practices. METHODS: We assessed the impact of the CDS intervention on percent of patients receiving an opioid and average opioid dose (morphine milligram equivalents). We operationalized safe opioid prescribing as a composite score of several behaviors (i.e., prescribing naloxone, initiating a pain agreement, prescribing <90 MME, avoiding extended-release prescriptions for opioid-naïve patients, and avoiding coprescribing opioids and benzodiazepines) and used a hierarchical linear regression model to assess associations between prescriber and facility characteristics and safe opioid prescribing. RESULTS: This CDS intervention had a modest but statistically significant 1.6% reduction on the percent of patients (n = 1,290,746) receiving an opioid (mean: 15% preintervention; 10% postintervention). The average dose of opioid prescriptions did not significantly change. Advanced practice providers and prescribers with higher percentages of patients aged 18 to 64 exhibited safer opioid prescribing, while prescribers with higher percentages of white patients and larger numbers of patients on opioids exhibited less safe opioid prescribing. CONCLUSION: A CDS intervention was associated with a small improvement in percent of patients receiving an opioid, but not on average dose. Clinicians are not prescribing opioids for chronic musculoskeletal conditions frequently, when they do, they are generally adhering to guidelines.

Impact of clinical decision support on controlled substance prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Prescription drug overdose and misuse has reached alarming numbers. A persistent problem in clinical care is lack of easy, immediate access to all relevant information at the actionable time. Prescribers must digest an overwhelming amount of information from each patient's record as well as remain up-to-date with current evidence to provide optimal care. This study aimed to describe prescriber response to a prospective clinical decision support intervention designed to identify patients at risk of adverse events associated with misuse of prescription opioids/benzodiazepines and promote adherence to clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: This study was conducted at a large multi-center healthcare system, using data from the electronic health record. A prospective observational study was performed as clinical decision support (CDS) interventions were sequentially launched (January 2016-July 2019). All data were captured from the medical record prospectively via the CDS tools implemented. A consecutive series of all patient encounters including an opioid/benzodiazepine prescription were included in this study (n = 61,124,172 encounters; n = 674,785 patients). Physician response to the CDS interventions was the primary outcome, and it was assessed over time using control charts. RESULTS: An alert was triggered in 23.5% of encounters with a prescription (n = 555,626). The prescriber decision was influenced in 18.1% of these encounters (n = 100,301). As the number of risk factors increased, the rate of decision being influenced also increased (p = 0.0001). The effect of the alert differed by drug, risk factor, specialty, and facility. CONCLUSION: The delivery of evidence-based, patient-specific information had an influence on the final prescription in nearly 1 in 5 encounters. Our intervention was sustained with minimal prescriber fatigue over many years in a large and diverse health system.

Adherence to legislation limiting opioid prescription duration following musculoskeletal injury.

OBJECTIVES: North Carolina had implemented legislation (Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act) limiting opioid prescriptions to 5 days for acute pain and 7 days for post-operative pain. This study aimed to identify patient, prescriber, and facility characteristics associated with STOP Act adherence for patients with acute or post-surgical musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. DESIGN: A three-level hierarchical logistic regression model was used to predict odds of adherence with STOP Act duration limits, accounting for fixed and random effects at the patient, prescriber, and facility levels. SETTING: A large healthcare system in North Carolina. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N = 6,849) presenting from 2018 to 2020 with a diagnosis of an acute MSK injury. INTERVENTIONS: The STOP Act limited the duration of opioid prescriptions in North Carolina. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Prescriptions adhering to the STOP Act duration limits of 5 days (nonoperative) or 7 days (operative) were the primary outcome. RESULTS: Opioids were compliant with STOP Act duration limits in 69.3 percent of encounters, with 33 percent of variation accounted for by clinician and 29 percent by facility. Patients prescribed >1 opioid (odds ratio (OR) 0.46, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 0.36, 0.58) had reduced odds of a compliant prescription; surgical patients had increased odds of a compliant prescription (outpatient surgery: OR 5.89, 95 percent CI: 2.43-14.29; inpatient surgery: OR 7.71, 95 percent CI: 3.04-19.56). Primary care sports medicine clinicians adhered to legislation less frequently than orthopedic surgeons (OR 0.38, 95 percent CI: 0.15, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Most prescriptions adhered to STOP Act legislation. Tailored interventions to improve adherence among targeted groups of prescribers, eg, those treating nonoperative injuries and sport medicine clinicians, could be useful.

Orthopaedic Trauma Never Sleeps: Resource Allocation Even During a Non-trauma Crisis.

This study aimed to describe hospital resource utilization of an orthopaedic trauma service and the injury epidemiology during the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic to help plan future non-trauma crises. A retrospective chart review was performed on adult patients > 18 years of age who presented to our Level I Trauma Center for musculoskeletal trauma from March 30, 2020 to May 8, 2020 (stay-at-home order) and from March 30, 2019 to May 8, 2019 (comparison group). There were 182 patient encounters and 274 fractures in the 2020 stay-at-home period, and there were 210 patient encounters and 337 fractures in the 2019 control group. There was no statistical difference found comparing the proportion of patient encounters in the stay-at-home period to the control period (p > 0.05). The similar volume of consultations and surgeries justifies maintenance of standard resource allocation. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(2):102-106, 2023).

Impact of Anesthesia selection on Post-Op Pain Management in Operatively treated Hip Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if the use of Peripheral Nerve Block (PNB) versus Local Infiltration Analgesia (LIA) for hip fracture patients, affected opioid consumption in the early post-operative period. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study SETTING: Two level 1 trauma centers PATIENTS/INTERVENTION: 588 patients with surgically treated AO/OTA 31A and 31B fractures between February 2016-October 2017 were included. 415 (70.6%) received general anesthesia (GA) alone, 152 received GA plus perioperative PNB (25.9%), and 21 had GA plus LIA intra-operatively (3.6%). Median age was 82 years; predominantly female (67%) and AO/OTA 31A fractures (55.37%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME) at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively, length of stay (LOS) and the occurrence of any complication after surgery RESULTS: The PNB cohort was less likely to use any opioid than the GA group at 24 and 48 hours postoperatively (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61 and OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.35-0.89 respectively). LOS ≥ 10 days had 3.24 times the odds of 24- and 48-hour opioid administration compared to LOS ≤ 10 days (OR: 3.24, 95% CI 1.11-9.42; OR: 2.98, 95% CI 1.38-6.41, respectively). The most common complication was post-operative delirium, with PNB more likely to present with any complication compared to GA (OR= 1.88, 95% CI 1.09-3.26). There was no difference when comparing LIA to general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest PNB for hip fracture can help limit the use of post-operative opioids with adequate pain relief. Regional analgesia does not seem to avoid complications such as delirium.

Health Literacy Awareness Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A COERG Survey.

Musculoskeletal health literacy (HL) is an emerging concept in orthopaedic patient care. Estimated rates of low musculoskeletal HL in patients surpass those of general HL. Studies in other specialties suggest that medical trainees are ill equipped to interact with low HL patients, often with detrimental patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to (1) establish the current state of HL awareness among orthopaedic surgery trainees, (2) characterize the current state of HL training in orthopaedic surgery programs, and (3) evaluate the desire for formalized HL training among orthopaedic surgery trainees. Methods: This study was endorsed by the Collaborative Orthopaedic Education Research Group board. A 17-item questionnaire was administered anonymously to orthopaedic residents through a secure online platform in the 2020 to 2021 academic year. All participation was voluntary. Results: One hundred ninety-two residents (42%) from 19 orthopaedic programs completed the survey. Most residents felt "somewhat comfortable" with issues related to HL. Most residents reported no specific training in HL issues during residency (77.5%). Of the 43 residents (22.3%) who did receive formal training, most of these individuals felt that the training is effective (N = 42, 97.7%). Role playing/standardized patient encounters were reported as the most effective form of HL training. Residents felt it was somewhat important to receive formal HL training in residency (median = 4.0, interquartile range = 3.0-5.0), and there was a modest desire for formalized training (39%). Discussion: This study is the first to characterize orthopaedic resident perceptions of HL issues in practice and training. Residents were somewhat confident in their understanding of HL concepts, and those who received formal training felt it was effective. However, there remains a low rate of formal orthopaedic resident training in HL issues, which may be an area for improvement in orthopaedic training paradigms.

Persistent opioid and benzodiazepine use after radical cystectomy in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) patients.

OBJECTIVES: Opioid use, misuse, and diversion is of paramount concern in the United States. Radical cystectomy is typically managed with some component of opioid pain control. We evaluated persistent opioid and benzodiazepine use after radical cystectomy and assessed the impact of their preoperative use on this outcome. We also explored associations between preoperative use and perioperative outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used prospectively maintained data from our enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) cystectomy database and the Prescription Reporting with Immediate Medication Utilization Mapping (PRIMUM) database to identify controlled substance prescriptions for radical cystectomy patients. We separated patients by frequency of preoperative opioid and/or benzodiazepine prescriptions (0, 1, 2+) and used these cohorts to explore persistent use (prescription 3-12 months after surgery) alongside perioperative outcomes. RESULTS: Our cohort included 257 patients undergoing cystectomy at a single institution from 2017 to 2021. Preoperative opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions were documented for 120 (46.7%) and 26 (10.1%) patients, respectively. Persistent opioid use was observed in 20 (14.6%) of opioid-naive patients (no prescriptions in 9 months prior to surgery) while 13 (19.7%) patients with 1 preoperative prescription and 28 (51.9%) patients with 2 or more preoperative prescriptions demonstrated persistent use. New persistent benzodiazepine use occurred in 6 (2.6%) patients. Overall persistent benzodiazepine use was present in 11 (4.3%) patients. In a multivariable model, preoperative opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions were associated with persistent opioid use (P < 0.001; P = 0.027 respectively). No association was identified between preoperative opioid or benzodiazepine usage and perioperative outcomes including length of stay, return of bowel function, inpatient opioid usage, inpatient or discharge complications, readmissions, or emergency department visits. Inpatient pain scores were noted to be higher in patients with ≥ 2 preoperative opioid prescriptions (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Persistent opioid use was present in 23.7% of patients, with a new persistent use rate of 14.6%. Benzodiazepine use was less frequent than opioids, with a small number demonstrating new persistent use. Preoperative opioid and benzodiazepine use is associated with persistent opioid use postoperatively. Preoperative opioid and benzodiazepine use did not affect perioperative outcomes in our cohort.

Developing and implementing a public health co-research program for Special Olympics athletes.

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are often the subject of research while rarely being included in formulating research questions, planning studies, and making decisions related to protocols and analyses. In turn, most research regarding people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is not carried out by researchers with disabilities themselves. We developed a co-research training program where individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities were taught about research. The program was designed using best practices and existing materials resources. We recruited four participants from Special Olympics Massachusetts and conducted the training in the Fall of 2021. We evaluated the program with surveys, qualitative interviews, and tracking continued involvement of co-researchers in research projects. Participants were partners in the evaluation process. The training program was six sessions and included lessons about why research is important, how to conduct research, and an experiential learning project where co-researchers conducted a study of their coaches. The program was well received by participants, and one year later they were still involved with research projects. A co-researcher training focused on public health for Special Olympics athletes is feasible and beneficial for athletes, researchers, and Special Olympics programs. However, there are still barriers like a lack of funding and time, that need to be addressed to ensure wide program success.

Co-research offers people with intellectual and developmental disabilities an opportunity to conduct research, rather than be the subjects. We developed a six-session co-researcher training in 2021 focused on public health for Special Olympics athletes. We found that co-research is feasible and rewarding for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Additional co-research activities and evaluation are needed. Special Olympics already conducts public health research activities and co-research training could be incorporated.

Implementation of required sedation assessment in nursing workflow to address naloxone utilization.

OBJECTIVE: Opioid-related adverse drug events continue to occur. This study aimed to characterize the patient population receiving naloxone to inform future intervention efforts. DESIGN: We describe a case series of patients who received naloxone in the hospital during a 16-week time frame in 2016. Data were collected on other administered medications, reason for admission to the hospital, pre-existing diagnoses, comorbidities, and demographics. SETTING: Twelve hospitals within a large healthcare system. PATIENTS: 46,952 patients were admitted during the study period. 31.01 percent (n = 14,558) of patients received opioids, of which 158 received naloxone. INTERVENTION: Administration of naloxone. Main outcome of interest: Sedation assessment via Pasero Opioid-Induced Sedation Scale (POSS), administration of sedating medications. RESULTS: POSS score was documented prior to opioid administration in 93 (58.9 percent) patients. Less than half of patients had a POSS documented prior to naloxone administration with 36.8 percent documented 4 hours prior. 58.2 percent of patients received multimodal pain therapy with other nonopioid medications. Most patients received more than one sedating medication concurrently (n = 142, 89.9 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight areas for intervention to prevent opioid oversedation. Investing in electronic clinical decision support mechanisms, such as sedation assessment, could detect patients at risk for oversedation and ultimately prevent the need for naloxone. Coordinated order sets for pain management can reduce the percentage of patients receiving multiple sedating medications and promote the use of multimodal pain management in efforts to reduce opioid reliance while optimizing pain control.

Changes in opioid prescription duration for musculoskeletal injury associated with the North Carolina Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether implementation of the Strengthen Opioid Misuse Prevention (STOP) Act was associated with an increase in the percentage of opioid prescriptions written for 7 days or fewer among patients with acute or postsurgical musculoskeletal conditions. DESIGN: An interrupted time-series study was conducted to determine the change in duration of opioid prescriptions associated with the STOP Act. SETTING: Data were extracted from the electronic health record of a large health care system in North Carolina. SUBJECTS: Patients presenting from 2016 to 2020 with an acute musculoskeletal injury and the clinicians treating them were included in an interrupted time-series study (n = 12 839). METHODS: Trends were assessed over time, including the change in trend associated with implementation of the STOP Act, for the percentage of prescriptions written for ≤7 days. RESULTS: Among patients with acute musculoskeletal injury, less than 30% of prescriptions were written for ≤7 days in January of 2016; by December of 2020, almost 90% of prescriptions were written for ≤7 days. Prescriptions written for ≤7 days increased 17.7% after the STOP Act was implemented (P < .001), after adjustment for the existing trend. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate significant potential for legislation to influence opioid prescribing behavior.

Efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of acute pain after orthopedic trauma: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Orthopedic Trauma Association.

Objectives: Fracture is a common injury after a traumatic event. The efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to treat acute pain related to fractures is not well established. Methods: Clinically relevant questions were determined regarding NSAID use in the setting of trauma-induced fractures with clearly defined patient populations, interventions, comparisons and appropriately selected outcomes (PICO). These questions centered around efficacy (pain control, reduction in opioid use) and safety (non-union, kidney injury). A systematic review including literature search and meta-analysis was performed, and the quality of evidence was graded per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The working group reached consensus on the final evidence-based recommendations. Results: A total of 19 studies were identified for analysis. Not all outcomes identified as critically important were reported in all studies, and the outcome of pain control was too heterogenous to perform a meta-analysis. Nine studies reported on non-union (three randomized control trials), six of which reported no association with NSAIDs. The overall incidence of non-union in patients receiving NSAIDs compared with patients not receiving NSAIDs was 2.99% and 2.19% (p=0.04), respectively. Of studies reporting on pain control and reduction of opioids, the use of NSAIDs reduced pain and the need for opioids after traumatic fracture. One study reported on the outcome of acute kidney injury and found no association with NSAID use. Conclusions: In patients with traumatic fractures, NSAIDs appear to reduce post-trauma pain, reduce the need for opioids and have a small effect on non-union. We conditionally recommend the use of NSAIDs in patients suffering from traumatic fractures as the benefit appears to outweigh the small potential risks.

Opioid and benzodiazepine use in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to describe opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing practices in the gynecologic oncology patient population and determine risks for opioid misuse in these patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions for patients treated for cervical, ovarian (including fallopian tube/primary peritoneal), and uterine cancers within a single healthcare system from January 2016 to August 2018. RESULTS: A total of 7643 prescriptions for opioids and/or benzodiazepines were dispensed to 3252 patients over 5754 prescribing encounters for cervical (n=2602, 34.1%), ovarian (n=2468, 32.3%), and uterine (n=2572, 33.7%) cancer. Prescriptions were most often written in an outpatient setting (51.0%) compared with inpatient discharge (25.8%). Cervical cancer patients were more likely to have received a prescription in an emergency department or from a pain/palliative care specialist (p=0.0001). Cervical cancer patients were least likely to have prescriptions associated with surgery (6.1%) compared with ovarian cancer (15.1%) or uterine cancer (22.9%) patients. The morphine milligram equivalents prescribed were higher for patients with cervical cancer (62.6) compared with patients with ovarian and uterine cancer (46.0 and 45.7, respectively) (p=0.0001). Risk factors for opioid misuse were present in 25% of patients studied; cervical cancer patients were more likely to have at least one risk factor present during a prescribing encounter (p=0.0001). Cervical cancer was associated with a higher number of risk factors (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing patterns differ for cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer patients. Gynecologic oncology patients are overall at low risk for opioid misuse; however, patients with cervical cancer are more likely to have risk factors present for opioid misuse.

How Many Patients Do We Need? Predictors of Consent to Participate in Clinical Research Studies in Orthopaedic Trauma.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the recruitment rates at a Level I trauma center enroling for multiple prospective orthopaedic trauma research studies and identify patient-related and study-related predictors of consent. DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study to identify predictors of study consent. The authors categorized studies based on intensity of the study intervention (low, intermediate, or high). A 2-level generalized linear model with random intercept for study was used to predict study consent. SETTING: This analysis includes data from 10 federally funded studies conducted as part of a large, national consortium that were enroling patients in 2013-2014. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred thirty-four patients were approached for at least 1 study and included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: N/A. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Consent to participate in the research study. RESULTS: A total of 315 patients consented to be in a study (71% of approached patients). Consent rate varied by study (45%-95%). No patient characteristics (race, age, or sex) were associated with consent. Patients approached for studies of intermediate intensity were 83% less likely to consent (odds ratio = 0.17; 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.67), and those approached for studies of high intensity were 91% less likely to consent (odds ratio = 0.09; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.32). CONCLUSION: Patient factors were not associated with consent. Study intensity is a major driver of consent rates. Studies of higher intensity will require the study team to approach up to twice as many patients as the target enrolment. This study provides a framework that can be used in study planning and determination of feasibility.