Does Deep Neuromuscular Blockade Improve Operating Conditions during Minimally Invasive Anterolateral Total Hip Replacements?: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is thought to improve operative conditions during certain procedures. Published descriptions of minimally invasive hip replacement techniques specify the need for "excellent relaxation", however, the optimal degree of NMB required for such cases has not been studied. We performed a randomized, single-blind study comparing the effect of moderate and deep neuromuscular blockade on surgical conditions and operating time during minimally invasive anterolateral hip replacement. Vecuronium was administered to maintain moderate NMB (train-of-four count of 1-2) or deep NMB (train-of-four count of 0, post-tetanic count of 1-2). Methods In this study, 116 patients were randomized to receive moderate or deep neuromuscular blockade; depth of blockade was monitored using acceleromyography. The primary outcome was the number of requests from the surgeon for additional blockade intraoperatively. Secondary outcomes included operative times and assessment of the operative conditions by the surgeon utilizing the Leiden-Surgical Rating Scale. Results Cases with additional requests for blockade did not differ between the deep and moderate NMB groups (11/58, 19.0% vs 8/58, 13.8%); relative risk, 1.22 (95% CI [confidence interval], 0.70-2.15), p=0.62. Neither time from incision to prosthesis reduction (33.8±1.2 min vs. 32.6 ±1.2 min; difference in geometric mean, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04] minutes, p=0.33), nor the surgeon's assessment of operative conditions (p=0.88), differed between the deep or moderate NMB groups, respectively.  Conclusions Deep NMB did not produce significantly improved operative conditions compared with moderate NMB. Routine use of deep NMB during minimally invasive anterolateral hip arthroplasty is not supported by this study.

Reduction of opioid prescribing through the sharing of individual physician opioid prescribing practices.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdoses are the most common cause of accidental death in the United States, with the majority being attributed to opioids. High per capita opioid prescribing is correlated with higher rates of opioid abuse and death. We aimed to determine the impact of sharing individual prescribing data on the rates of opioid prescriptions written for patients discharged from the emergency department (ED). METHODS: This was a pre-post intervention at a single community ED. We compared opioid prescriptions written on patient discharge before and after an intervention consisting of sharing individual and comparison prescribing data. Clinicians at or over one standard deviation above the mean were notified via standard template electronic communication. RESULTS: For each period, we reported the median number of monthly prescriptions written by each clinician, accounting for the total number of patient discharges. The pre-intervention median was 12.5 prescriptions per 100 patient discharges (IQR 10-19) compared to 9 (IQR 6-11) in the post-intervention period (p < 0.001). This represents a 28% reduction in the overall rate of opioid prescriptions written per patient discharged. Using interrupted time series analysis for monthly rates, this was associated with a reduction in opioid prescriptions, showing a decrease of almost 9 prescriptions for every 100 discharges over the 6 months of the study (p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the sharing of individual opioid prescribing data was associated with a reduction in opioid prescribing at a single institution.