Clinical and surgical factors associated with opioid refill rates following septorhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Septorhinoplasty is one the most common class of procedures performed worldwide, and opioids are frequently prescribed for post-operative pain [1]. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the rate of post-operative opioid prescription refills following septorhinoplasty. METHODS: This study was a case-control study of patients who underwent septoplasty and other secondary concomitant procedures. RESULTS: Of the 249 patients included in this study, the majority of patients (94.8%) were prescribed 12 tablets of hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5 mg - 325 mg and only 31 patients (13.3%) received refills. The presence of osteotomies and history of prior opioid use were associated with refills. Nasal valve repair type, open versus closed approach, and presence of autologous auricular cartilage graft harvest were not. DISCUSSION: Our study highlights factors that surgeons should consider when prescribing opioids after septorhinoplasty. Twelve tablets of an opioid are likely sufficient for the majority of patients, but if osteotomies are performed or the patient has a history of prior opioid use, more may be indicated to avoid the need for refills. Additional narcotics are not necessary for an open approach or for patients in which auricular cartilage is needed.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening after Silicone Implant Breast Surgery: Patient Survey of Adherence to U.S. Food and Drug Administration Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends women with silicone breast implants undergo magnetic resonance imaging surveillance to detect asymptomatic rupture. Screening is costly and often not covered by insurance. The authors assessed awareness of and adherence to these recommendations among patients with silicone breast implants. METHODS: The authors searched electronic medical records for patients aged 18 years or older with silicone breast implants placed between 2011 and 2016. Consenting patients were surveyed by telephone using a standardized script to assess awareness of U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations, whether they had undergone magnetic resonance imaging screening, and barriers to testing. Patients who declined to participate or could not be contacted were excluded. Demographics and operative data were collected. Odds ratios were calculated with one-sample 95 percent confidence intervals, and Fisher exact tests of independence were conducted under assumptions of normality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to test for confounding. RESULTS: Of 370 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 109 consented to participate. Adherence to U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations was 5.9 percent (95 percent CI, 0.15 to 28.7 percent). There was no difference in adherence between patients undergoing cosmetic versus reconstructive surgery ( p = 1.00; OR, 0.80; 95 percent CI, 1.17 to 2.93), having health insurance ( p = 0.58), or residing in a county with median annual household income greater than that of the state of residence ( p = 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of respondents had undergone magnetic resonance imaging in accordance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Low adherence highlights a potential limitation of current federal surveillance recommendations. Additional research is needed to better characterize adherence to magnetic resonance imaging surveillance recommendations, identify barriers to implementation, and determine whether this recommendation remains valid.

Does the timing of postoperative showering impact infection rates? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Optimum timing of postoperative showering varies. Earlier showering improves patient satisfaction, but the impact of the timing of showering on postoperative infection is unclear. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of various postoperative showering practices. METHODS: We searched PubMed to identify relevant human clinical studies in English, and searched these for additional references. Articles were reviewed for patient demographics, surgical specialty and procedure, wound closure method, placement of drains, showering protocol, and rates of infection and complications. Only randomized controlled trials were analyzed. A random-effects meta-analysis model was used to determine overall infection and complication rates between patients allowed to shower within the first 48 h postoperatively or later. RESULTS: Out of 357 studies, seven and five were included in the infection and complications rate meta-analyses, respectively. A total of 1,881 and 958 patients were included in each analysis; 605 and 477 patients in each analysis were allowed to shower on or before postoperative day 2 ("early"), while the remainder were prohibited from showering until postoperative day 3 to beyond one week ("delayed") postoperatively. There was no difference in infection (p = 0.45, [-0.0052, 2 × 0.007 95% CI]) or complication rate (p = 0.36, [-0.0046, 2 × 0.005 95% CI]) with earlier vs. delayed showering protocols. CONCLUSION: Published literature demonstrates no increase in the overall rate of wound infections or complications when patients showered earlier in the postoperative period. Additional randomized studies are needed to determine the ideal time for postoperative showering. These data should be considered by surgeons while determining when to permit patients to shower after surgery.

Efficacy of a Novel Intraoperative Engineered Sharps Injury Prevention Device: Pilot Usability and Efficacy Trial.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons reports 88,320 intraoperative needlestick injuries (NSIs) per year, resulting in US $376 to US $2456 in costs per NSI. Engineered sharps injury prevention (ESIP) devices protect against NSIs. To our knowledge, no study has been published to date to demonstrate clinical effectiveness of an intraoperative ESIP device. Operative Armour is a wearable arm cuff that can be donned during surgical closure to allow surgeons to keep a suture pack and sharps protection container on their forearm. OBJECTIVE: We characterize Operative Armour's ESIP device effectiveness in a tertiary hospital, hypothesizing that this device will decrease NSI risk by decreasing behaviors associated with NSIs: needle passing and handling. METHODS: A prospective case-control study was conducted with institutional review board quality improvement designation in which authors observed skin closures of plastic surgery procedures. To ensure accuracy, one surgeon was observed at a time. Control surgeries were purely observational; intervention cases involved surgeon use of the device during skin closure. Outcomes of interest included needle passing, needle handling, lost needles, and loaded waiting needles. RESULTS: Surgeons were observed in 50 control and 50 intervention cases. Operative Armour eliminated needle passing during skin closure. One NSI occurred in one control case; no NSIs were observed in intervention cases (P=.36). The mean number of loaded and unprotected waiting needles was also significantly decreased in the intervention group from 2.3 to 0.2 (P<.001). Furthermore, a multivariable linear regression established that Operative Armour significantly decreased the number of needle adjustments by hand per stitch observed (F4, 21.68=3.72; P=.01). In fact, needle adjustments by hand decreased overall (1 adjustment per 10 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.004), and adjustments occurred half as frequently with use of Operative Armour in free flap reconstruction (1 adjustment per 10 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.03) and a quarter as frequently in other breast reconstruction cases such as mastopexy (1 adjustment per 20 stitches vs 1 adjustment per 5 stitches, P=.002). CONCLUSIONS: Operative Armour effectively functions as an ESIP device by decreasing intraoperative needle passing and handling. Although sample size prohibits demonstrating a decrease in NSIs during observed cases, by decreasing behaviors that drive NSI risk, we anticipate an associated decrease in NSIs with use of the device.