The Opioid Risk Tool Correlates With Increased Postsurgical Opioid Use Among Patients With Orthopedic Trauma.

The aim of this study was to determine whether the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT), which has been validated in patients with chronic pain, relates to postoperative opioid consumption. The purpose was to investigate a tool that could help identify patients with orthopedic trauma at high risk for opioid abuse. Patients 18 to 80 years old presenting between May 2018 and August 2018 to UNC Hospitals with isolated orthopedic injuries that required surgical intervention were considered for inclusion. At 2 weeks postoperatively, the ORT was administered. At 6 weeks postoperatively, total morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was determined for each patient. Each patient was also categorized as either low risk (LR) or moderate to high risk (M-HR) based on the cumulative ORT score. Finally, opioid prescriptions provided after 6 weeks postoperatively was recorded. One hundred four patients met the inclusion criteria, and 42 completed the questionnaire. Thirty patients were categorized as LR and 12 patients as M-HR. Patients who were at M-HR consumed a significantly higher MME than LR patients (LR=406 [95% CI, 287-526]; M-HR=824 [95% CI, 591-1057]; P=.001). Linear regression analysis showed that for each additional risk factor, opioid consumption increased by 61 MME, and approximately 58% of the variation in opioid consumption could be explained by the ORT (beta=61, R2=0.58, P=.02). In this study, the ORT predicted which patients would have increased opioid consumption after orthopedic trauma surgery. Each additional risk factor correlated with increased opioid use. The ORT did not predict which patients would continue to receive opioid prescriptions after 6 weeks postoperatively. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(4):e219-e222.].

Administration of Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Within 12 Hours of Pelvic and Acetabular Surgery Has No Effect on Estimated Blood Loss, Perioperative Change in Hemoglobin, or Need for Transfusion.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if preoperative administration of venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis (PPx) before pelvic and acetabular fracture surgery affects estimated blood loss (EBL), perioperative change in hemoglobin (ΔHgb), or transfusion rates. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center, southeastern United States. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: All pelvic and acetabular surgeries performed between April 2014 and February 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: EBL, immediate and 24-hour postoperative ΔHgb, and intraoperative/postoperative transfusion. RESULTS: In all, 267 surgeries were included: 97 prechange and 170 postchange. Median injury severity score was 17 before versus 14 after the change. One surgeon retired and two started during the study, producing differences in acetabular approaches. Median surgical duration was longer postchange. Cohorts were otherwise similar. No differences were observed in EBL, ΔHgb, or transfusion rates. Rates of VTE and surgical site complications were unchanged. No VTE-related deaths occurred. In the as-treated analysis (63 patients given low-molecular-weight heparin <12 hours preoperatively vs. 190 patients not given PPx), no differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of VTE PPx within 12 hours of pelvic and acetabular surgery had no effect on perioperative blood loss. This study is limited by changes in faculty, but it suggests that traumatologists need not advocate for holding VTE PPx before pelvic and acetabular trauma surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Factors influencing management of bilateral femur fractures: A multicenter retrospective cohort of early versus delayed definitive Fixation.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the factors that influence the timing of definitive fixation in the management of bilateral femoral shaft fractures and the outcomes for patients with these injuries. METHODS: Patients with bilateral femur fractures treated between 1998 to 2019 at ten level-1 trauma centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped into early or delayed fixation, which was defined as definitive fixation of both femurs within or greater than 24 hours from injury, respectively. Statistical analysis included reversed logistic odds regression to predict which variable(s) was most likely to determine timing to definitive fixation. The outcomes included age, sex, high-volume institution, ISS, GCS, admission lactate, and admission base deficit. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-eight patients were included; 164 patients were included in the early fixation group and 164 patients in the delayed fixation group. Patients managed with delayed fixation had a higher Injury Severity Score (26.8 vs 22.4; p<0.01), higher admission lactate (4.4 and 3.0; p<0.01), and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale (10.7 vs 13; p<0.01). High-volume institution was the most reliable influencer for time to definitive fixation, successfully determining 78.6% of patients, followed by admission lactate, 64.4%. When all variables were evaluated in conjunction, high-volume institution remained the strongest contributor (X2 statistic: institution: 45.6, ISS: 8.83, lactate: 6.77, GCS: 0.94). CONCLUSION: In this study, high-volume institution was the strongest predictor of timing to definitive fixation in patients with bilateral femur fractures. This study demonstrates an opportunity to create a standardized care pathway for patients with these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Single-Stage Versus 2-Stage Bilateral Intramedullary Nail Fixation in Patients With Bilateral Femur Fractures: A Multicenter Retrospective Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate rates of complications in patients with bilateral femur fractures treated with intramedullary nailing (IMN) during either 1 single procedure or 2 separate procedures. DESIGN: A multicenter retrospective review of patients sustaining bilateral femur fractures, treated with IMN in single or 2-stage procedure, from 1998 to 2018 was performed at 10 Level-1 trauma centers. SETTING: Ten Level-1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-six patients with bilateral femur fractures. INTERVENTIONS: Intramedullary nailing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of complications. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients were included, with 188 single-stage and 58 two-stage patients. Gender, age, injury severity score, abbreviated injury score, secondary injuries, Glasgow coma scale, and proportion of open fractures were similar between both groups. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occurred at higher rates in the 2-stage group (13.8% vs. 5.9%; P value = 0.05). When further adjusted for age, gender, injury severity score, abbreviated injury score, Glasgow coma scale, and admission lactate, the single-stage group had a 78% reduced risk for ARDS. In-hospital mortality was higher in the single-stage cohort (2.7% compared with 0%), although this did not meet statistical significance (P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest multicenter study to date evaluating the outcomes between single- and 2-stage IMN fixation for bilateral femoral shaft fractures. Single-stage bilateral femur IMN may decrease rates of ARDS in polytrauma patients who are able to undergo simultaneous definitive fixation. However, a future prospective study with standardized protocols in place will be required to discern whether single- versus 2-stage fixation has an effect on mortality and to identify those individuals at risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Impact of academic collaboration and quality of clinical orthopaedic research conducted in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the quality of orthopaedic investigations conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Academic collaboration is one model to build research capacity and improve research quality. Our study aimed to determine (1) the quality of clinical orthopaedic research conducted in LMICs, (2) the World Bank Regions and LMICs that publish the highest quality studies, (3) the pattern of collaboration among investigators and (4) whether academic collaboration between LMIC and non-LMIC investigators is associated with studies that have higher levels of evidence. METHODS: Orthopaedic studies from 2004 to 2014 conducted in LMICs were extracted from multiple electronic databases. The World Bank Region, level of evidence and author country-affiliation were recorded. Collaboration was defined as a study that included an LMIC with non-LMIC investigator. RESULTS: There were 958 studies that met inclusion criteria of 22,714 searched. Ninety-seven (10.1%) of included studies achieved Level 1 or 2 evidence, but case series (52.3%) were the most common. Collaboration occurred in 14.4% of studies and the vast majority of these (88.4%) were among academic institutions. Collaborative studies were more likely to be Level 1 or 2 (20.3% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.01), prospective (34.8% vs. 22.9% p = 0.04) and controlled (29.7% vs. 14.4%, p < 0.01) compared to non-collaborative studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although orthopaedic studies in LMICs rarely reach Level 1 or 2 evidence, studies published through academic collaboration between LMIC and non-LMIC investigators are associated with higher levels of evidence and more prospective, controlled designs.