IMPORTANCE Opioid overdose is the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. Several studies have shown that surgeons overprescribe opioids, and guidelines for appropriate opioid prescribing are available. Concern about patient-reported satisfaction scores may be a barrier to surgeons adopting guideline-directed prescribing.OBJECTIVE To determine whether decreased opioid prescribing is associated with a decrease in patient-reported satisfaction with their surgeon. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective analysis of clinician satisfaction scores at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center obtained in 2 periods: 1 before (period A) and 1 after (period B) an educational intervention that resulted in decreased opioid prescribing. The analysis included 11 surgeons who performed 5 common outpatient general surgical operations on 996 patients. Data were analyzed between March and August 2018.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPatient-reported overall satisfaction rating of the surgeon (scale, 0-10). This was collected by a nonstudy-related, routine general institutional survey of approximately 40% of all outpatient encounters.
RESULTSOf the total number of patients, 67% were women (667 of 996), and the mean patient age was 58 years. Comparing period A with B, the proportion of patients prescribed opioids decreased from 90.2% (n = 367 of 407) to 72.8% (n = 429 of 589) (P < .001). The mean number of opioid pills per prescription decreased from 28.3 to 13.3 (P < .001) and significantly decreased for each of the 11 surgeons. One hundred five of 996 patients (10.5%) undergoing index operations responded to the survey. There was no difference in the mean clinician satisfaction ratings from period A vs B (9.70 vs 9.65; P = .69). During the study periods, 640 total surveys were collected referencing these surgeons (including outpatient encounters associated with operations other than the 5 index cases). There was no difference in the mean satisfaction ratings from period A vs period B (9.55 vs 9.59; P = .62). When individual clinicians were analyzed, none had a significant difference in overall satisfaction rating from period A vs period B.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Despite a marked decrease in the proportion of patients receiving opioids and in the number of pills prescribed, there was no significant change in clinician satisfaction ratings.
Background:
Bertolotti’s syndrome is defined by back pain and/or radicular symptoms attributed to a congenital lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV). There are few studies that discuss the surgical management of Bertolotti’s syndrome. Here, we report long-term outcomes after resecting a pseudoarthrosis between the sacrum and L5 in two teenage patients, along with a review of literature.
Case Descriptions:
Surgical resection of a lumbosacral bridging articulation (LSTV type IIa) was performed in two patients, 15 and 16 years of age who presented with intractable back pain. The adequacy of surgery was confirmed with postoperative studies. In both patients, pain and functional status improved within 6 weeks and have remained improved at last follow-up.
Conclusion:
Surgical removal of a pathologic L5 transverse process fused to the sacral ala in two young patients with Bertolotti’s syndrome improved postoperative pain and increased overall function. Given the progressive nature of Bertolotti’s syndrome, surgical intervention in young patients should be considered to mitigate years of chronic pain and attendant morbidity.
There is inadequate neurosurgical literature discussing appropriate clinical study design. Here, we explore considerations for 2 fundamental study designs of epidemiology: experimental and observational cohort studies, through examples of theoretical yet realistic neurosurgical research questions. By examining 2 common neurosurgical procedures—namely, subdural drains for evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma, and the utility of navigation for placing external ventricular drains—we characterize the framework of cohort study models for clinical research applications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.