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.

Perioperative nutritional status thought to be important, but poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES: Malnutrition has been shown to increase complications and leads to poor outcomes in surgical patients, but it has not been studied extensively in orthopedic trauma. This study's purpose is to determine the perspective and assessment of nutrition by orthopedic traumatologists. METHODS: A survey was created and distributed via REDCap to orthopedic traumatologists at 60 U.S. trauma centers. Out of 183 distributed surveys, 130 surgeons completed the survey (71%). The survey focused on the importance of nutrition and practice patterns in orthopedic trauma. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of surgeons thought that nutritional status was "very important" to the final outcome of patients with orthopedic trauma injuries, 24% responded "somewhat important" and 1% responded "not important." Furthermore, 88% perform nutritional assessments; most surgeons (77%) utilize nutritional laboratory markers, with the most common markers being albumin, pre-albumin, transferrin and CRP. Additionally, 42% think trending the laboratory markers is important, and 50% are not sure if nutrition markers should be tested at multiple time points. Despite 75% of surgeons believing that nutrition is very important, only 8% discuss it with patients routinely. When asked what is more important for outcomes, nutrition or Vitamin D, almost three times as many surgeons thought nutrition was more important (29% vs 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: While orthopedic traumatologists believe nutrition is an important determinant of patient outcomes, this study shows a clear lack of consensus and variability in practice regarding nutrition among surgeons. Orthopedic trauma surgeons need specific guidelines on how to assess and treat malnutrition in trauma patients.

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.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness analysis osseointegrated transfemoral versus socket prosthesis using Markov modelling.

Aims: Prior cost-effectiveness analyses on osseointegrated prosthesis for transfemoral unilateral amputees have analyzed outcomes in non-USA countries using generic quality of life instruments, which may not be appropriate when evaluating disease-specific quality of life. These prior analyses have also focused only on patients who had failed a socket-based prosthesis. The aim of the current study is to use a disease-specific quality of life instrument, which can more accurately reflect a patient's quality of life with this condition in order to evaluate cost-effectiveness, examining both treatment-naïve and socket refractory patients. Methods: Lifetime Markov models were developed evaluating active healthy middle-aged male amputees. Costs of the prostheses, associated complications, use/non-use, and annual costs of arthroplasty parts and service for both a socket and osseointegrated (OPRA) prosthesis were included. Effectiveness was evaluated using the questionnaire for persons with a transfemoral amputation (Q-TFA) until death. All costs and Q-TFA were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses on those cost variables which affected a change in treatment (OPRA to socket, or socket to OPRA) were evaluated to determine threshold values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Results: For treatment-naïve patients, the lifetime ICER for OPRA was $279/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). For treatment-refractory patients the ICER was $273/QALY. In sensitivity analysis, the variable thresholds that would affect a change in the course of treatment based on cost (from socket to OPRA), included the following for the treatment-naïve group: yearly replacement components for socket > $8,511; cost yearly replacement parts OPRA < $1,758; and for treatment-refractory group: yearly replacement component for socket of > $12,467. Conclusion: The use of the OPRA prosthesis in physically active transfemoral amputees should be considered as a cost-effective alternative in both treatment-naïve and treatment-refractory socket prosthesis patients. Disease-specific quality of life assessments such as Q-TFA are more sensitive when evaluating cost-effectiveness.

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.

The use of xenogenic dermal matrices in the context of open extremity wounds: where and when to consider?

Optimal treatment of orthopaedic extremity trauma includes meticulous care of both bony and soft tissue injuries. Historically, clinical scenarios involving soft tissue defects necessitated the assistance of a plastic surgeon. While their expertise in coverage options and microvascular repair is invaluable, barriers preventing collaboration are common. Acellular dermal matrices represent a promising and versatile tool for orthopaedic trauma surgeons to keep in their toolbox. These biological scaffolds are each unique in how they are used and promote healing. This review explores some commercial products and offers guidance for selection in different clinical scenarios involving traumatic wounds.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Patients with glenohumeral arthritis are more likely to be prescribed opioids in the emergency department or urgent care setting.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to quantify the rate of opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing for the diagnosis of shoulder osteoarthritis across a large healthcare system and to describe the impact of a clinical decision support intervention on prescribing patterns. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: One large healthcare system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients presenting with shoulder osteoarthritis. INTERVENTIONS: A clinical decision support intervention that presents an alert to prescribers when patients meet criteria for increased risk of opioid use disorder. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The percentage of patients receiving an opioid or benzodiazepine, the percentage who had at least one risk factor for misuse, and the percent of encounters in which the prescribing decision was influenced by the alert were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 5,380 outpatient encounters with a diagnosis of shoulder osteoarthritis were included. Twenty-nine percent (n = 1,548) of these encounters resulted in an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription. One-third of those who received a prescription had at least one risk factor for prescription misuse. Patients were more likely to receive opioids from the emergency department or urgent care facilities (40 percent of encounters) compared to outpatient facilities (28 percent) (p < .0001). Forty-four percent of the opioid prescriptions were for "potent opioids" (morphine milliequivalent conversion factor > 1). Of the 612 encounters triggering an alert, the prescribing decision was influenced (modified or not prescribed) in 53 encounters (8.7 percent). All but four (0.65 percent) of these encounters resulted in an opioid prescription. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence against routine opioid use for osteoarthritis, one-third of patients with a primary diagnosis of glenohumeral osteoarthritis received an opioid prescription. Of those who received a prescription, over one-third had a risk factor for opioid misuse. An electronic clinic decision support tool influenced the prescription in less than 10 percent of encounters.

ON Path: outpatient nonunion pathway for lower-extremity nonunions.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of outpatient and short-stay surgical nonunion treatment by incorporating minimally invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain control, and a modernized postoperative protocol. Design: Retrospective case series. Setting: Tertiary referral hospital and hospital outpatient department. Patients: All consecutive nonunion surgeries performed by 1 surgeon between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Outpatient and short-stay surgeries for patients with nonunion of the tibia and femur were eligible (n = 50). Intervention: Outpatient and short-stay surgical nonunion treatment by incorporating minimally invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain control, and a modernized postoperative protocol. Main Outcome Measurements: Length of stay, postoperative emergency department visits, all complications, reoperations, and time to union. Results: Fifty patients were eligible, with 32 male patients (64%) and an average age of 46.5 years. The patient cohort consisted of 28 femur (56%) and 22 tibia (44%) nonunions. The average length of stay was 0.36 days. Seven patients (14%) required reoperation, 6 patients because of deep infection and 1 patient because of painful implant removal. Four patients (8%) presented to the emergency department within 1 week of surgery. One patient requiring amputation and patients lost to follow-up were excluded from the union rate calculation. For the remaining patients (46/50), 100% (46/46) united their nonunion. The average time to radiographic union was 7.82 months. Conclusions: An outpatient pathway is safe and effective for medically appropriate patients undergoing nonunion surgery. Outpatient nonunion surgery is a reasonable alternative that achieves similar outcomes compared with inpatient nonunion studies in the published literature. Level of Evidence: IV.

Resident Education and Wellness: A Strategy for Future Pandemics.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presented a novel challenge to modern healthcare systems and medical training. Resource allocation and risk mitigation dramatically affected resident training. The objective of this article is to develop new strategies to maintain a healthy, competent residency program while combating the unique challenges to resident education and wellness. In 2020, our institution implemented a revolving 3-Team system. While the "Inpatient-Team" delivered direct care, the "Back-up Team" and "Quarantine-Team" managed the telemedicine virtual clinic and education-wellness strategy, respectively. Our 3-Team system allowed delivery of safe, high-quality patient care while optimizing resident education, research, and wellness. The efficient use of technology led to both improved virtual education outside of the hospital and intentional wellness opportunities despite social distancing restrictions. Utilization of virtual platforms for patient care, education, research, and wellness grew out of necessity in this pandemic, yet represent an opportunity for lasting improvement. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 31(3):150-154, 2022).