Background: Prescribing opioids upon discharge after surgery is common practice; however, there are many inherent risks including dependency, diversion, and medical complications. Our prospective pre- and post-intervention study investigates the effect of a standardized analgesic prescription on the quantity of opioids prescribed and patients' level of pain and satisfaction with pain control in the early post-operative period. Methods: With the implementation of an electronic medical record, a standardized prescription was built employing multimodal analgesia and a stepwise approach to analgesics based on level of pain. Patients received an education handout pre-operatively explaining the prescription. Consecutive patients over a three-month period undergoing elective spine surgery as day or overnight stay cases who received usual care were compared to a similar cohort who received the standardized prescription and education. Patient satisfaction with post-operative pain control, post-operative pain scores, number of refills required, and opioids prescribed in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) were compared before and after implementation of the standardized analgesic prescription. Results: Twenty-six patients received usual care (Control group) and 26 patients received the standardized prescription and education handout (Intervention group). There were significantly fewer OMEs prescribed in the Intervention group compared to the Control group. There was no difference between groups in: patient post-operative pain intensity score, post-operative satisfaction score, or number of refills required. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that a standardized prescription consisting of an appropriate amount of opioid and non-opioid analgesics is effective in reducing the OMEs prescribed post-operatively in elective spine surgery procedures, without compromising patient pain control or satisfaction or increasing the number of refills required.

Background: There is significant variability in clinically important improvement (CII) criteria for spinal surgery that suggest population-and diagnosis-specific thresholds are required to determine surgical success using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This study establishes surgical CII thresholds for 4 common lumbar degenerative spinal diagnoses using accepted anchor-based methodology and commonly used PROMs. Methods: CII analysis was conducted using baseline and 1-year data from participants in the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network (CSORN) registry who underwent surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS), degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), disc herniation (DH) or degenerative disc (DD) from 2015 to 2018. One-year CII thresholds were determined for the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and back and leg Numeric Pain Rating Scales (NPRS). At 1 year, patients reported whether they were much better, better, the same, worse or much worse compared with before their surgery. This was used as the anchor (improved: ≥ "better" v. not improved: ≤ "same") to determine CII thresholds for absolute change and percentage change for PROMs using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve approach, with maximization of the Youden index as primary criterion. Correct classification rates were determined. Results: There were 856 participants with LSS (39.1% female, mean age 65.8 yr), 591 with DS (64.1% female, mean age 65.8 yr), 520 with DH (47.5% female, mean age 46.8 yr) and 185 with DD (43.8% female, mean age 50.9 yr). CII for ODI change ranged from -10.0 (DD) to -16.9 (DH). CII for back and leg NPRS change was -2 to -3 for each group. CII for percentage change varied by PROM and pathology group, ranging from -11.1% (ODI for DD) to -50.0% (leg NPRS for DH). Correct classification rates for all CII thresholds ranged from 72.1% to 89.4%. Conclusion: This work quantifies Canadian CII thresholds for the ODI and back and leg NPRS for 4 common lumbar spinal surgery cohorts, with high classification accuracy. Our results suggest that use of generic CII across different diagnoses in spine surgery is not advised. This study establishes the first comprehensive set of responder criteria in Canada for broader application and specificity in clinical and research settings and for surgical prognostic work.

No abstract

IntroductionSpine surgery patients have high rates of perioperative opioid consumption, with a chronic opioid use prevalence of 20%. A proposed solution is the implementation of a Transitional Pain Service (TPS), which provides patient-tailored multidisciplinary care. Its feasibility has not been demonstrated in spine surgery. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a TPS programme in patients undergoing spine surgery.MethodsPatients were recruited between July 2020 and November 2021 at a single, tertiary care academic centre. Success of our study was defined as: (1) enrolment: ability to enrol ≥80% of eligible patients, (2) data collection: ability to collect data for ≥80% of participants, including effectiveness measures (oral morphine equivalent (OME) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-perceived analgesic management and overall health) and programme resource requirements measures (appointment attendance, 60-day return to emergency and length of stay), and (3) efficacy: estimate potential programme effectiveness defined as ≥80% of patients weaned back to their intake OME requirements at programme discharge.ResultsThirty out of 36 (83.3%) eligible patients were enrolled and 26 completed the TPS programme. The main programme outcomes and resource measures were successfully tracked for >80% of patients. All 26 patients had the same or lower OME at programme discharge than at intake (intake 38.75 mg vs discharge 12.50 mg; p<0.001). At TPS discharge, patients reported similar overall health VAS (pre 60.0 vs post 70.0; p=0.14), improved scores for VAS-perceived analgesic management (pre 47.6 vs post 75.6; p<0.001) and improved Brief Pain Inventory pain intensity (pre 39.1 vs post 25.0; p=0.02).ConclusionOur feasibility study successfully met or exceeded our three main objectives. Based on this success and the defined clinical need for a TPS programme, we plan to expand our TPS care model to include other surgical procedures at our centre.