Background Rib fractures are common injuries among traumatically injured patients, and elderly patients with rib fractures are at increased risk for adverse events and death. The purpose of this study was to determine if oral Per os (PO) acetaminophen is as effective as intravenous (IV) acetaminophen in treating the pain associated with rib fractures. Methods We performed a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Trauma patients who were ≥65 years old and had ≥1 rib fracture were included in this study. Patients were randomized into IV acetaminophen and oral placebo (n = 63) or IV placebo and oral solution acetaminophen (n = 75) groups. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included opioid use, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, hospital mortality, the difference in incentive spirometry, and development of pneumonia. Results Among the 138 patients included, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 study groups in a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours after injury (PO: 3.24, IV: 2.49; P = .230). Opioid pain medication use was equivalent between groups ( P = .212), and there was no significant difference in hospital mortality rate between groups ( P = .827). There was no statistically significant difference in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or development of pneumonia. Discussion In elderly trauma patients (age ≥65 years) with 1 or more rib fractures, PO acetaminophen is equivalent to IV acetaminophen for pain control, with no difference in morbidity or mortality. Oral acetaminophen should be preferentially used over IV acetaminophen when treating the elderly trauma patient with rib fractures.

Introduction Opioid use after surgery or trauma has been implicated as a contributing factor to opioid dependence. The Acute Care Surgery (ACS) service at our community-based trauma center instituted an opioid-minimizing, multi-modal pain control (MMPC) protocol. The classes of pain medication included a non-opioid analgesic, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, a gabapentinoid, a skeletal muscle relaxant, and a topical anesthetic. We hypothesize that the MMPC will result in lower opioid consumption compared with the prior STP as evidenced by lower morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per day Methods All adult patients (≥18 years) admitted to the ACS service from Jan 2014 to Dec 2015 and Jan 2018 to Dec 2019 were screened for inclusion. The standard pain control group (STP) and MMPC groups were defined by the year of admission. The primary outcome is opioid use per day, calculated in MME received. Secondary outcomes of the study include daily pain scores, incidence of opioid-related complications, death, ventilator days, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay (HLOS) days. Results Multi-modal pain control protocol group was older and less injured than STP group. Daily opioid utilization was significantly less in the MMPC group (22.5 MMEs/d vs 60MMEs/d in the STP group, P < .0001). Additionally, daily pain scores were not different between groups. Secondary outcomes did not vary between the two groups. Conclusion This study shows that implementation of a MMPC protocol resulted in lower opioid consumption in injured patients. Pain was equivalently controlled during the MMPC protocol period as demonstrated by similar pain scores.