Background: Since 2016, over half of the states in the United States have passed mandatory limits on opioid prescriptions, with limited evidence of effectiveness. In this study, we evaluated postoperative opioid prescriptions following orthopaedic surgery before and after the implementation of one of the earliest such laws. Methods: Following the implementation of state legislation limiting opioid prescriptions for opioid-naïve patients, 2 patient cohorts (pre-law and post-law) were compared. Both opioid-tolerant and opioid-naïve patients undergoing 6 common orthopaedic procedures (total knee arthroplasty, rotator cuff repair, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radial fracture, open reduction and internal fixation for an ankle fracture, and lumbar discectomy) met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing >1 primary procedure in the same operative session were excluded. All benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions from 30 days before to 90 days after the surgical procedure were recorded. Logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors for prolonged postoperative opioid use. Results: In this study, 836 pre-law patients were compared with 940 post-law patients. The 2 groups were similar with regard to demographic variables, baseline opioid tolerance, and recent benzodiazepine use (all p > 0.05). Post-law, for all patients, there were decreases in the initial prescription pill quantity (49.65 pills pre-law and 22.08 pills post-law; p < 0.001) and the total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) (417.67 MMEs pre-law and 173.86 MMEs post-law; p < 0.001), regardless of patient preoperative opioid exposure (all p < 0.001). Additionally, there were decreases in the mean cumulative 30-day MMEs (790.01 MMEs pre-law and 524.61 MMEs post-law; p < 0.001) and the 30 to 90-day MMEs (243.51 MMEs pre-law and 208.54 MMEs post-law; p = 0.008). Despite being specifically exempted from the legislation, opioid-tolerant patients likewise experienced a significant decrease in cumulative 30-day MMEs (1,304.08 MMEs pre-law and 1,015.19 MMEs post-law; p = 0.0016). Opioid-tolerant patients required more postoperative opioids at all time points and had an increased likelihood of prolonged opioid use compared with those who were opioid-naïve preoperatively (odds ratio, 8.73 [95% confidence interval, 6.21 to 12.29]). Conclusions: A clinically important and significant reduction in opioid utilization after orthopaedic surgery was observed following the implementation of statewide mandatory opioid prescription limits. Clinical Relevance: After implementation of mandatory opioid prescription regulations, a clinically important and significant decline in the volume of opioids dispensed in the short term and intermediate term following orthopaedic surgery was observed. Furthermore, important clinical predictors of prolonged postoperative opioid use, including preoperative opioid use and preoperative benzodiazepine use, were identified. These findings have important implications for public health, as well as the potential to influence policymakers and to change practice among orthopaedic surgeons.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has adopted the strategic goal of evolving its culture and governance to become more strategic, innovative, and diverse. Given the charge to increase diversity, a focus on assessing and increasing diversity at the faculty level may help this cause. However, an analysis of gender and racial diversity among orthopaedic faculty has not been performed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate faculty appointments for underrepresented minority (URM) and female orthopaedic surgeons. We also aim to draw comparisons between orthopaedic surgery and other specialties. Methods: Data on gender, race, and faculty rank (clinical instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor) of academic faculty for 18 specialties from 1997 to 2017 were obtained from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Faculty Roster. Assistant professors were designated as junior faculty, whereas associate professor and professor were considered senior faculty. URMs were defined using the AAMC definition—groups having lower representation than in the general population. Regression analysis was used to evaluate and compare the change over time and to compare the change across different specialties. Results: Over the 20-year study period, the number of female faculty increased (8.8% pts) but represents a lower proportion than other specialties (13.9% pts) (p = 0.029). Female orthopaedic senior faculty grew slower (7.3% pts) than other specialties (14.7% pts) (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the growth of URM faculty positions (2.0% pts) compared with all other specialties (2.4% pts) (p = 0.165). The proportion of orthopaedic URM senior faculty increased less (0.5% pts) than other specialties (2.5% pts) (p < 0.001), whereas more orthopaedic URM junior faculty were added than other specialties (2.2% pts) (p = 0.012). Conclusions: Although orthopaedic surgery has increased the representation of female and URM faculty members, it continues to lag behind other specialties. In addition, fewer female and URM orthopaedic faculty members obtained senior faculty status than other specialties. To address the differences seen in faculty diversity, a concerted effort should be made to recruit and promote more diverse faculty, given similar qualifications and capabilities. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV .

No abstract

No abstract