Background: Multimodal pain protocols have been effective for postsurgical pain control; however, no published protocol has been effective in eliminating opioid consumption. Purpose: To compare a multimodal nonopioid pain protocol versus traditional opioid medication for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 90 patients undergoing primary ACLR were assessed for participation. We performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial in accordance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 statement. The study arms were a multimodal nonopioid analgesic protocol (acetaminophen, ketorolac, diazepam, gabapentin, and meloxicam) and a standard opioid regimen (hydrocodone-acetaminophen), and the primary outcome was postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for 10 days. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction. The observers were blinded, and the patients were not blinded to the intervention. Results: A total of 9 patients did not meet inclusion criteria, and 19 patients declined participation. Thus, 62 patients were analyzed, with 28 patients randomized to the opioid group and 34 to the multimodal nonopioid group. Patients receiving the multimodal nonopioid pain regimen demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores compared with patients who received opioid pain medication ( P < .05). Patients were administered the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System Pain Interference Short Form, and no significant difference was found in patients’ preoperative scores (opioid group, 58.6 ± 7.9; multimodal nonopioid group, 57.5 ± 7.4; P = .385) and 1-week postoperative scores (opioid group, 66.3 ± 8.2; multimodal nonopioid group, 61.4 ± 8.8; P = .147). When we adjusted for possible confounders (age, sex, body mass index, graft type), no significant differences in pain control were found between the 2 groups. The most common adverse effects for both groups were drowsiness and constipation, with no difference between the groups. All patients in the multimodal nonopioid group reported satisfactory pain management. Conclusions: A multimodal nonopioid pain protocol provided at least equivalent pain control compared with traditional opioid analgesics in patients undergoing ACLR. Minimal side effects, which did not differ between groups, were noted, and all patients reported satisfaction with their pain management.

No abstract

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a valid and efficient means of collecting patient outcomes in patients with meniscal tears. The studies purpose was to define the minimally clinical important difference (MCID) for PROMIS domains following meniscectomy procedures. Secondary aims included determining the role of pre-operative PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) scores in predicting achievement of MCID following meniscectomy. Methods: Patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy who completed PROMIS CAT forms for physical function (PROMIS-PF), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and depression (PROMIS-D), from July 2017 to July 2019, at a single institution were utilized. MCID was calculated according to the distribution methodology, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were utilized to determine if pre-operative scores were predictive of post-operative outcomes. Results: A total of 135 patients met inclusion criteria. Postoperative PROMIS-PF (45.6), PROMIS-PI (54.6), and PROMIS-D (44.1) significantly improved 3 months after surgery (p<0.01). MCID values for PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D were 3.5, 3.3, and 4.4, respectively. 62% of the entire cohort met MCID for PROMIS-PF, while 68% met MCID for PROMIS-PI, and 41% met MCID for PROMIS-D. Individuals with PROMIS-PF scores below 34.9 yielded an 82% probability of achieving MCID, while PROMIS-PI scores above 67.5 yielded an 86% probability of achieving MCID and a cutoff of 58.9 for PROMIS-D yielded a 60% probability of achieving MCID, with 90% specificity. Conclusion: Significant portions of patients undergoing meniscectomy achieve MCID in PROMIS-PF, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D, at the 3-month time point. In particular, patients with PROMIS-PF scores of <34.9 are far more likely to achieve MCID for physical function.

The purpose of this form is to provide readers of your manuscript with information about your other interests that could influence how they receive and understand your work. The form is designed to be completed electronically and stored electronically. It contains programming that allows appropriate data display. Each author should submit a separate form and is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the submitted information. The form is in six parts. Identifying information. The work under consideration for publication. This section asks for information about the work that you have submitted for publication. The time frame for this reporting is that of the work itself, from the initial conception and planning to the present. The requested information is about resources that you received, either directly or indirectly (via your institution), to enable you to complete the work. Checking "No" means that you did the work without receiving any financial support from any third party-that is, the work was supported by funds from the same institution that pays your salary and that institution did not receive third-party funds with which to pay you. If you or your institution received funds from a third party to support the work, such as a government granting agency, charitable foundation or commercial sponsor, check "Yes". Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work. This section asks about your financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work. You should disclose interactions with ANY entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work. For example, if your article is about testing an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antagonist in lung cancer, you should report all associations with entities pursuing diagnostic or therapeutic strategies in cancer in general, not just in the area of EGFR or lung cancer. Report all sources of revenue paid (or promised to be paid) directly to you or your institution on your behalf over the 36 months prior to submission of the work. This should include all monies from sources with relevance to the submitted work, not just monies from the entity that sponsored the research. Please note that your interactions with the work's sponsor that are outside the submitted work should also be listed here. If there is any question, it is usually better to disclose a relationship than not to do so. For grants you have received for work outside the submitted work, you should disclose support ONLY from entities that could be perceived to be affected financially by the published work, such as drug companies, or foundations supported by entities that could be perceived to have a financial stake in the outcome. Public funding sources, such as government agencies, charitable foundations or academic institutions, need not be disclosed. For example, if a government agency sponsored a study in which you have been involved and drugs...

No abstract