Surgery and pain relief: A closer look at opioid prescription trends.

BACKGROUND: Published guidelines to reduce the use and misuse of opioids in pediatrics are limited. After the implementation of an opioid stewardship program, we aimed to investigate the prescribing patterns in pediatric surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of pediatric patients who underwent general pediatric surgery procedures at a single institution between July 2021 and July 2023 was conducted. Demographics, procedure details, and opioid prescriptions at discharge were collected. The Texas Prescription Monitoring Program was cross-referenced for prescription-filled data. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Of the 4,323 patients included, 9% (391) received an opioid prescription at the time of discharge. Among these, 82% were for burns, 7% for trauma, and 4% for pectus excavatum. Appendectomy, inguinal hernia repair, umbilical hernia repair, and circumcision did not receive any opioid prescriptions. In those who received a prescription, the median age was 4.2 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.6, 10.4), with 58.6% being male. A total of 82.6% of patients also received prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics. The median number of prescribed doses was 13 (IQR 7, 15) for burns, 12 (IQR 9, 15) for trauma, and 12 (IQR 10, 12) for pectus excavatum. In total, 87% of prescriptions were filled. CONCLUSION: A small proportion of pediatric patients who underwent general surgery received opioid prescriptions at the time of discharge and were limited to a few conditions. Common pediatric operations received no opioid prescriptions in the 2-year study period. A total of 13% of the written prescriptions were unfilled. Future studies are needed to optimize the target pediatric patient population for opioid prescribing.

Less Dose, Same Care: Evaluating Computed Tomography Utilization for Pediatric Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: An ultrasonography-first, magnetic resonance imaging-second protocol, and attention to dose reduction was implemented to reduce computed tomography rates for appendicitis at our institution. We aimed to compare current computed tomography usage and report radiation doses at our children's associated system hospitals and referring nonsystem hospitals. METHODS: A retrospective study of pediatric patients who underwent appendectomy and had a preoperative computed tomography scan between June 2020 and June 2023 was performed. Demographics and imaging details were abstracted from the medical record. Size-specific dose estimates and effective dose estimates were calculated for each computed tomography. Size-specific dose estimates were compared with American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry diagnostic reference levels. RESULTS: Of 1,419 patients, 409 (29%) received a computed tomography for appendicitis, a 56% reduction from previous years (2012-2015) (P < .001). Overall, 352 computed tomography scans had dose data available, of which 291 (83%) were performed at system hospitals and 61 (17%) at nonsystem hospitals. The median size-specific dose estimate per computed tomography was 11.0 mGy (interquartile range 7.0, 17.4) for nonsystem hospitals and 9.1 mGy (interquartile range 6.6, 14.0) for system hospitals. The median effective dose per computed tomography was 6.7 mSv (interquartile range 4.3, 12.9) at nonsystem hospitals and 5.1 mSv (interquartile range 3.3, 9.4) at system hospitals. Nienty-three (n = 273) computed tomography scans performed at system hospitals and 30 computed tomography scans (n = 61) at nonsystem hospitals exceeded American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry age-based diagnostic reference levels. CONCLUSION: The ultrasonography-first, magnetic resonance imaging-second protocol resulted in a significant decrease in computed tomography use for appendicitis diagnosis. Comparison of doses to American College of Radiology Dose Index Registry reference levels suggests that computed tomography protocol optimization may allow for dose reduction at some facilities.

Hardware Infection From Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures Is Lower Than Previously Reported.

Introduction Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is an emerging therapy for the treatment of patients with traumatic rib fractures. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SSRF, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the complications from SSRF, especially those related to hardware infection. Currently, literature quotes hardware infection rates as high as 4%. We hypothesize that the hardware infection rate is much lower than currently published. Methods This is an IRB-approved, four-year multicenter descriptive review of prospectively collected data from January 2016 to June 2022. All patients undergoing SSRF were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included those patients less that 18 years of age. Basic demographics were obtained: age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Abbreviate Injury Scale-chest (AIS-chest), flail chest (yes/no), delayed SSRF more than two weeks (yes/no), number of patients with a pre-SSRF chest tube, and number of ribs fixated. Primary outcome was hardware infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality rate and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Basic descriptive statistics were utilized for analysis. Results A total of 453 patients met criteria for inclusion in the study. Mean age was 63 ± 15.2 years and 71% were male. Mean ISS was 17.3 ± 8.5 with a mean AIS-chest of 3.2 ± 0.5. Flail chest (three consecutive ribs with two or more fractures on each rib) accounted for 32% of patients. Forty-two patients (9.3%) underwent delayed SSRF. The average number of ribs stabilized was 4.75 ± 0.71. When analyzing the primary outcome, only two patients (0.4%) developed a hardware infection requiring reoperation to remove the plates. Overall HLOS was 10.5 ± 6.8 days. Five patients suffered a mortality (1.1%), all five with ISS scores higher than 15 suggesting significant polytrauma. Conclusion This is the largest case series to date examining SSRF hardware infection. The incidence of SSRF hardware infection is very low (<0.5%), much less than quoted in current literature. Overall, SSRF is a safe procedure with low morbidity and mortality.