No abstract

No abstract

Objective To quantify the representation of female program directors (PDs) and assess their respective demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics in chronic pain and acute pain medicine fellowship programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Methods The authors identified chronic and acute pain PDs on the ACGME website on 11/15/2020. We abstracted data from public databases and performed comparisons of demographics, academic metrics, and program-related characteristics between female and male PDs. Results We identified 111 chronic pain programs and 35 acute pain programs. Overall, there were 35 (31.5%) chronic pain programs with a female PD and 76 (68.5%) chronic pain programs with a male PD. Female chronic pain PDs published fewer peer-reviewed articles (4.0 publications, 2.0-12.0 IQR) compared to male chronic pain PDs (9.0 publications, 4.0-27.0 IQR, P=0.050), although there was no difference in the H-index score (3.0 vs 4.0 publications, respectively; P=0.062) or senior academic rank status (57.1% vs 50.0%, respectively; P=0.543). There were 10 (28.6%) acute pain programs with a female PD and 25 (71.4%) acute pain programs with a male PD. Similar to the chronic pain cohort, there was no difference in senior academic rank status based on gender in acute pain PDs (50.0% vs 24.0%, respectively; P=0.227). Conclusion Our study highlights gender differences in the PD role in ACGME-accredited chronic and acute pain fellowships. Female PDs remain under-represented and have fewer peer-reviewed publications. Senior academic rank status was similar across genders, contradicting the current evidence in academic medicine.

Posterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common despite multimodal analgesia and regional anesthesia use. This review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic outcomes after inclusion of local anesthetic infiltration between the popliteal artery and capsule of the knee (iPACK) block versus pathways without iPACK. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus) were searched from inception to 10/11/2020. Eligible studies evaluated iPACK use on primary outcomes: opioid consumption and pain scores with movement. Secondary outcomes included rest pain, patient satisfaction, length of stay (LOS), gait distance, knee range of motion (ROM), and complications. Bias and quality were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines. Eight RCTs (777 patients) were included. iPACK block use demonstrated similar opioid consumption in the PACU (4/7 RCTs) and 24 hours after TKA (5/7 RCTs) compared to without iPACK (moderate-quality GRADE evidence). Additionally, iPACK block use demonstrated lower movement pain scores in PACU (3/5 RCTs) but similar or higher pain scores after 24 hours (5/7 RCTs; lowquality GRADE evidence). Studies consistently reported no difference in gait distance (4/4 RCTs) or complications (7/7 RCTs) between treatment arms (high-quality GRADE evidence), although differing effect estimates were observed with resting pain, satisfaction, LOS, and knee ROM. This review provides a foundation of knowledge on iPACK efficacy. While evidence does not currently support widespread inclusion of iPACK within enhanced recovery pathways for TKA, limitations suggest further study is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, painsedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation. RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49-64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 vs 93 [IQR,; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03-1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36-3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41-4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS. (Anesth Analg 2022;134:35-43) KEY POINTS• Question: How do perioperative outcomes of opioid consumption and postoperative respiratory complications compare between patients with an opioid-based intrathecal drug delivery system (IDDS) versus control patients without an IDDS? • Findings: Patients with an opioid-based IDDS consumed more perioperative opioids, yet experienced similar adverse events (ie, escalation in postoperative oxygen requirements, postoperative naloxone administration, and pain-sedation mismatch) compared to matched control patients. • Meaning: Patients with an opioid-based IDDS have greater perioperative opioid needs with no differences in safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses.