Household Income as a Predictor for Surgical Outcomes and Opioid Use After Spine Surgery in the United States

Study Design Cross-Sectional Study Objectives Socioeconomic status (SES) is a fundamental root of health disparities, however, its effect on surgical outcomes is often difficult to capture in clinical research, especially in spine surgery. Here, we present a large single-center study assessing whether SES is associated with cause-specific surgical outcomes. Methods Patients undergoing spine surgery between 2015 and 2019 were assigned income in accordance with the national distribution and divided into quartiles based on the ZIP code-level median household income. We performed univariate, chi-square, and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) analysis assessing the independent association of SES, quantified by household income, to operative outcomes, and multiple metrics of opioid consumption. Results 1199 patients were enrolled, and 1138 patients were included in the analysis. Low household income was associated with the greatest rates of 3-month opioid script renewal (OR:1.65, 95% CI:1.14-2.40). In addition, low-income was associated with higher rates of perioperative opioid consumption compared to higher income including increased mean total morphine milligram equivalent (MME) 252.25 (SD 901.32) vs 131.57 (SD 197.46) (P < .046), and inpatient IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) MME 121.11 (SD 142.14) vs 87.60 (SD 86.33) (P < .023). In addition, household income was independently associated with length of stay (LOS), and emergency room (ER) revisits with low-income patients demonstrating significantly longer postop LOS and increasing postoperative ER visits. Conclusions Considering the comparable surgical management provided by the single institution, the associated differences in postoperative outcomes as defined by increased morbidities and opioid consumption can potentially be attributed to health disparities caused by SES.

Effects of Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine on Short-Term Outcomes and Survival in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Ovarian Cancer: A Retrospective Propensity Score Matching Study

BackgroundIntravenous lidocaine has been shown to reduce opioid consumption and is associated with favourable outcomes after surgery. In this study, we explored whether intraoperative lidocaine reduces intraoperative opioid use and length of stay (LOS) and improves long-term survival after primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer and explored the correlation between SCN9A expression and ovarian cancer prognosis.MethodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent primary debulking surgery(PDS) for ovarian cancer from January 2015 to December 2018. The patients were divided into non-lidocaine and lidocaine [bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine at the induction of anaesthesia followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/(kg∙h) intraoperatively] groups. Intraoperative opioid consumption, the verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS) at rest and LOS were recorded. Propensity score matching was used to minimize bias, and disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two groups.ResultsAfter propensity score matching(PSM), the demographics were not significantly different between the groups. The intraoperative sufentanil consumption in the lidocaine group was significantly lower than that in the non-lidocaine group (Mean: 35.6 μg vs. 43.2 μg, P=0.035). LOS was similar between the groups (12.0 days vs. 12.4 days, P=0.386). There was a significant difference in DFS between the groups (32.3% vs. 21.6%, P=0.015), and OS rates were significantly higher in the lidocaine group than in the non-lidocaine group (35.2% vs. 25.6%, P=0.042). Multivariate analysis indicated that intraoperative lidocaine infusion was associated with prolonged OS and DFS.ConclusionIntraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion appears to be associated with improved OS and DFS in patients undergoing primary debulking surgery for ovarian cancer. Our study has the limitations of a retrospective review. Hence, our results should be confirmed by a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Opioid-free versus opioid-based anesthesia in pancreatic surgery

Background Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is associated with significantly reduced cumulative postoperative morphine consumption in comparison with opioid-based anesthesia (OBA). Whether OFA is feasible and may improve outcomes in pancreatic surgery remains unclear. Methods Perioperative data from 77 consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic resection were included and retrospectively reviewed. Patients received either an OBA with intraoperative remifentanil (n = 42) or an OFA (n = 35). OFA included a combination of continuous infusions of dexmedetomidine, lidocaine, and esketamine. In OBA, patients also received a single bolus of intrathecal morphine. All patients received intraoperative propofol, sevoflurane, dexamethasone, diclofenac, neuromuscular blockade. Postoperative pain management was achieved by continuous wound infiltration and patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was postoperative pain (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS). Opioid consumption within 48 h after extubation, length of stay, adverse events within 90 days, and 30-day mortality were included as secondary outcomes. Episodes of bradycardia and hypotension requiring rescue medication were considered as safety outcomes. Results Compared to OBA, NRS (3 [2–4] vs 0 [0–2], P < 0.001) and opioid consumption (36 [24–52] vs 10 [2–24], P = 0.005) were both less in the OFA group. Length of stay was shorter by 4 days with OFA (14 [7–46] vs 10 [6–16], P < 0.001). OFA (P = 0.03), with postoperative pancreatic fistula (P = 0.0002) and delayed gastric emptying (P < 0.0001) were identified as only independent factors for length of stay. The comprehensive complication index (CCI) was the lowest with OFA (24.9 ± 25.5 vs 14.1 ± 23.4, P = 0.03). There were no differences in demographics, operative time, blood loss, bradycardia, vasopressors administration or time to extubation among groups. Conclusions In this series, OFA during pancreatic resection is feasible and independently associated with a better outcome, in particular pain outcomes. The lower rate of postoperative complications may justify future randomized trials to test the hypothesis that OFA may improve outcomes and shorten length of stay.

Comparison of Opioid Consumption Patterns of Three Interbody Fusion Surgical Techniques

Study Design Retrospective review. Objectives With increased awareness of the opioid crisis in spine surgery, the focus postoperatively has shifted to managing surgical site pain while minimizing opioid use. Numerous studies have compared outcomes and fusion status of different interbody fusion techniques; however, there is limited literature evaluating opioid consumption postoperatively between techniques. The aim of this study was to assess in-house and postoperative opioid consumption across 3 surgical techniques. Methods Patients were stratified by technique: posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF), and cortical screw (CS) instrumentation with interbody fusion. Age, ASA, BMI, depression, preoperative opioid use, EBL, and OR time were recorded and compared across surgical groups using Welch’s ANOVA and chi-square analysis. Total morphine equivalent dose (MED) was tabulated for both in-house consumption and postoperative prescriptions and was compared across surgical techniques using Welch’s ANOVA analysis, Mann Whitney U tests, and linear regression. Results Two hundred and thirty nine patients underwent one- or two-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion between 2016 and 2020. One hundred and twenty one patients underwent CS instrumentation, 95 underwent PLIF, and 83 underwent MIS-TLIF. There was a significantly higher percentage of patients who had a history of depression and preoperative opioid consumption in the CS group ( P = .001, P = .009). CS instrumentation required significantly less total post-op opioids per kilogram bodyweight compared to MIS-TLIF and PLIF surgeries ( P = .029). Conclusions Patients who underwent CS instrumentation required less opioids postoperatively. CS instrumentation may be associated with less postoperative pain due to the less invasive approach, however, patient education and prescriber practice also play a role in postoperative opioid consumption.