Prevalence and predictors of long-term opioid use following orthopaedic surgery in an Australian setting: A multicentre, prospective cohort study.

Opioid analgesics prescribed for the management of acute pain following orthopaedic surgery may lead to unintended long-term opioid use and associated patient harms. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of opioid use at 90 days after elective orthopaedic surgery across major city, regional and rural locations in New South Wales, Australia. We conducted a prospective, observational cohort study of patients undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery at five hospitals from major city, regional, rural, public and private settings between April 2017 and February 2020. Data were collected by patient questionnaire at the pre-admission clinic 2-6 weeks before surgery and by telephone call after 90 days following surgery. Of the 361 participants recruited, 54% (195/361) were women and the mean age was 67.7 years (standard deviation 10.1 years). Opioid use at 90 or more days after orthopaedic surgery was reported by 15.8% (57/361; 95% confidence interval (CI) 12.2-20%) of all participants and ranged from 3.5% (2/57) at a major city location to 37.8% (14/37) at an inner regional location. Predictors of long-term postoperative opioid use in the multivariable analysis were surgery performed at an inner regional location (adjusted odds ratio 12.26; 95% CI 2.2-68.24) and outer regional location (adjusted odds ratio 5.46; 95% CI 1.09-27.50) after adjusting for known covariates. Long-term opioid use was reported in over 15% of patients following orthopaedic surgery and appears to be more prevalent in regional locations in Australia.

Prevalence and predictors of opioid use before orthopaedic surgery in an Australian setting: A multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study.

Opioid analgesics are commonly used by patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery, and preoperative opioid use is associated with a greater burden of postoperative pain, suboptimal surgical outcomes and higher healthcare costs. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of total opioid use before elective orthopaedic surgery with a focus on regional and rural hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. This was a cross-sectional, observational study of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery conducted between April 2017 and November 2019 across five hospitals that included a mix of metropolitan, regional, rural, private and public settings. Preoperative patient demographics, pain scores and analgesic use were collected during pre-admission clinic visits, held between two and six weeks before surgery. Of the 430 patients included, 229 (53.3%) were women and the mean age was 67.5 (standard deviation 10.1) years. The overall prevalence of total preoperative opioid use was 37.7% (162/430). Rates of preoperative opioid use ranged from 20.6% (13/63) at a metropolitan hospital to 48.8% (21/43) at an inner regional hospital. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the inner regional setting was a significant predictor of opioid use before orthopaedic surgery (adjusted odds ratio 2.6; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 6.7) after adjusting for covariates. Opioid use prior to orthopaedic surgery is common and appears to vary by geographical location.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures.

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.