RESUMO
Background: Currently 128 people die daily from opioid-related overdoses in the United States. This burden has instigated a search for viable means to guide postoperative prescription decision-making. The Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient with Pain (SOAPP) are validated risk assessment tools to predict opioid usage in high-risk populations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these opioid risk assessments and pain intensity scores, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), to predict postoperative opioid use and dependence in shoulder surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of 81 patients who underwent shoulder surgery and completed 3 preoperative risk and pain assessments within a single hospital system from 2018 to 2020 was performed. Demographic variables and ORT-O, SOAPP-R (the revised version of the SOAPP assessment), and PROMIS 3a scores were recorded from preoperative assessments. Opioid prescriptions were recorded from Electronic-Florida Online Reporting of Controlled Substances Evaluation. Dependence was defined as opioid prescriptions at or greater than 3 months after surgery. Risk assessment scores were compared and tested against postoperative opioid prescriptions using statistical analyses and logistic regression modeling. Results: In the cohort, there were 36 female and 45 male patients with an average age of 64.5 years and body mass index of 28.0. Preoperatively, the average pain score was 6.2, and 7.8% of patients reported prolonged preoperative narcotics use. The average ORT-O score was 3.0, with 35.8% of patients defined as either medium or high risk, and the average PROMIS pain intensity preoperatively was 10.8. Neither the ORT-O nor the PROMIS pain score were good predictors of postoperative opioid dependence (area under curve = 0.39 and 0.43, respectively). The SOAPP-R performed slightly better (area under curve = 0.70) and was the only assessment with significantly different mean scores between patients with postoperative opioid dependence and those without (33.4 and 24.5, respectively, P = .049) and a moderate correlation to postoperative total morphine equivalents (R = 0.46, P = .007). Conclusion: With recent focus on preoperative risk assessments to predict postoperative opioid use and dependence, it is important to understand how well these tools work when applied to orthopedic patients. While the ORT may be helpful in other fields, it does not seem to be a strong predictor of postoperative opioid use or dependence in patients undergoing various types of shoulder surgery. Future studies are needed to explore the utility of the SOAPP-R in a larger sample and identify tools applicable to the orthopedic population to assist surgeons in screening at-risk patients.
RESUMO
Introducción. A pesar de los notables progresos en cáncer infantil, más del 60% de los niños afectados en el mundo tienen escaso acceso a tratamientos eficaces. El propósito de este estudio fue evaluar los resultados de tratamiento en una situación de recursos limitados. Métodos. Fue un estudio descriptivo-histórico con componente analítico en 242 menores de 16 años atendidos entre 1990 y 2007 en la Clínica Infantil Colsubsidio de Bogotá, Colombia. Durante tres periodos se introdujeron protocolos internacionales, atención en "hospital de día" para tratamientos de quimioterapia y soporte ambulatorio, con enfermeras entrenadas en oncología, una pediatra oncóloga y un hematólogo con dedicación de 8 horas, el apoyo en hospitalización de médicos pediatras 24 horas y la agilización de trámites administrativos. Se compararon la supervivencia y las fallas de tratamiento. Resultados. Se observó aumento (40.5 a 63%) en la supervivencia (P =0.021) y disminución (22.4 a 8.9%) en la remisión a otros centros (P =0.025); tendencia a la reducción en mortalidad por complicaciones agudas (16.3 a 9.9%) y en frecuencia de rechazo o abandono del tratamiento (5.2 a 3%). La supervivencia libre de eventos para leucemia linfoblástica fue de 65% a 10 años. Conclusiones. El programa mostró resultados alentadores en un contexto de recursos limitados.
Background. Despite remarkable progress achieved for pediatric cancer, >60% of children affected worldwide have little or no access to effective therapy. This study assessed the results of a pediatric cancer program in a limited resources setting. Methods. A historical descriptive study with analytic component was conducted between 1990 and 2007 in 242 children <16 years of age at Clínica Infantil Colsubsidio in Bogotá, Colombia. Measures included international protocol-based therapy, day-hospital system for chemotherapy and blood-cell support provided by trained nurses, pediatric oncologist and hematologist staffed 8-h with 24-h on-site physician coverage, as well as rapid administrative support. Treatment failure rates and survival were compared during the study. Results. An increase (40.5% to 63.3%) in survival (p =0.021) and a reduction in the referral for treatment (22.4% to 8.9%) to other centers (p =0.025) were observed during the study. There were also tendencies towards reduction in mortality due to acute complications (16.3-9.9%) and in frequency of those who refused or abandoned therapy (5.2 to 3%).The 10-year event-free-survival for acute lym-phoblastic leukemia was 65%. Conclusions. The strategy provided encouraging survival outcomes in a limited resources setting.
RESUMO
El mejor instrumento disponible para establecer si una nueva intervención en salud produce más beneficios que perjuicios a los sujetos que la reciben en el experimento clínico controlado (también conocido como ensayo clínico). Este diseño permite al investigador observar los resultados de la intervención en un grupo de individuos, y comparar su respuesta con la obtenida en un grupo control tan parecido al primero como sea posible, pero que recibe el tratamiento convencional. Aunque éste principio es relativamente simple, la ejecución de un experimento clínico requiere una cuidadosa planificación, que incluye la definición de la pregunta de investigación, la selección de los sujetos, su asignación a los tratamientos del estudio, la descripción de las intervenciones, la evaluación de las respuestas a los mismos y el análisis de los resultados. En cada uno de éstos pasos existe el riesgo de crear diferencias sistemáticas entre los grupos en aspectos diferentes a las investigaciones que se comparan, que pueden llevar al investigador a conclusiones que no se ajustan a la verdad. Adicionalmente, la inclusión de sujetosw humanos en éstos estudios requiere una muy cuidadosa consideración de aspectos éticos.
