Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

INTRODUCTIONSmokers undergoing total joint replacement (TJR) are more likely to develop infections and be re-admitted than non-smokers. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of standardized preoperative referral to a community-based pharmacist-led smoking cessation program compared to usual care for patients undergoing TJR. Secondarily, we evaluated the use of the smoking cessation program.METHODSA pre-post quasi-experimental study was conducted at a central intake clinic that prepares approximately 3000 TJR patients annually. Participants were recruited at a mean of 13±11.1 weeks preoperatively and provided informed consent. Participants in the ‘pre’ observational phase (OP) received usual care for smoking cessation. For ‘post’ intervention phase (IP) participants, a referral was sent to a community-based pharmacist-led smoking cessation program. Smoking status was validated on study entry using exhaled carbon monoxide. Participants’ smoking status was re-assessed using self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 6 months post-recruitment.RESULTSWe enrolled 120/150 (80%) potential OP candidates and 104/286 (36%) potential IP candidates. The groups were similar on study entry; overall, the mean age of participants was 58.7±9.1 years and 103 (47%) were male. They reported medium nicotine dependence with 37±11.6 mean years smoked. At 6 months post-recruitment, 8 (7%) OP participants self-reported 30-day point prevalence abstinence compared to 21 (20%) IP participants (p=0.003). Only 58 (56%) IP participants complied with the pharmacist referral, with 19 (33%) of those seeing the pharmacist reporting point prevalence abstinence at 6 months compared to only 2 (4%) of the 45 participants who did not see the pharmacist (p<0.001).CONCLUSIONSReferral to a community smoking cessation program as preoperative standard of care is feasible and can enhance long-term quit rates, but voluntary participation led to low recruitment to the program.

INTRODUCTION We compared smoking cessation outcomes between those who used a pharmacist-led community-based smoking cessation intervention and those who did not, prior to total joint replacement (TJR) surgery. Also, we examined intervention characteristics (e.g. number/duration of sessions attended, recommended therapy) and smoking cessation outcomes. METHODS This prospective evaluation was nested within a comparative study from a centralized clinic that prepares over 3000 patients annually for TJR and focused on participants referred to the community-based smoking cessation program preoperatively. Pharmacists offered an individualized evidence-based intervention and collected visit, duration and intervention data. Smoking cessation, the primary outcome, was ascertained independently of participating pharmacists at 6 weeks post-operative using exhaled CO monitoring and at 6 months post-recruitment via telephone interview. RESULTS Of 286 eligible candidates, 104 agreed to participate, with one subsequently withdrawing (n=103). At 6 weeks post-operatively, 66/103 (64%) participants returned for study re-assessment while 63/103 (61%) participants completed the post-recruitment interview at 6 months; non-respondents to study follow-up were considered smokers. Of 103 participants, 58 (56%) consulted with a pharmacist; those who did not consult a pharmacist (n=45) were slightly younger (p=0.02) with significantly higher CO level (p=0.02) on study entry. Validated 7-day point prevalence abstinence (PPA) at 6 weeks post-operative was 11/58 (19%) in pharmacist-compliant participants compared to 2/45 (4%) in non-compliant participants (p=0.04). At 6 months post-recruitment, 19/58 (33%) pharmacistcompliant participants self-reported a 7-day PPA compared to 2/45 (4%) by non-compliant participants (p<0.001). For pharmacist-compliant participants, 33/58 (54%) saw the pharmacist 4 times; the mean overall pharmacist time was 71.8±24.4 minutes/patient with 26/58 (45%) and 19/58 (33%) prescribed nicotine replacement therapy and varenicline, respectively, and 13/58 (22%) not using medication; post hoc analysis suggested varenicline was marginally more effective for smoking cessation than no medication (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Community-based pharmacist-led smoking cessation programs are an effective addition to usual preoperative care for smokers awaiting elective TJR. Using existing community resources led to higher smoking cessation rates in smokers waiting for TJR relative to those not using these resources.

Introduction: Non-specific chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a significant concern for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Some CAF members develop pain-related fear of movement that is difficult to treat. The goal of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of applying a virtual reality exercise program using the Computer Assisted Rehabilitation Environment (CAREN) with CAF members with cLBP and kinesiophobia. Methods: Participants were randomized into one of two treatment groups or a control group. The treatment groups received 10 CAREN sessions over 2.5 weeks (high intensity) or over 5 weeks (low intensity), and the control group received exercise instruction alone. A standard CAREN protocol using five applications was used to encourage trunk movement and stability. Results: Eleven participants were recruited. Both CAREN treatment protocols were feasible, with 100% attendance, and CAREN performance continued to improve over the 10 sessions with no plateau. CAREN participants showed stable or slightly improved scores on outcome measures from baseline to post-intervention. Participants showed no consistency on the physical performance measures, with ceiling effects or variability noted between participants. Discussion: Significant inferences regarding effectiveness cannot be made because of the low number of participants. The CAREN treatment protocol was shown to be feasible and well tolerated at these intensities. The outcome measures that show the most promise for future study include the Oswestry Disability Index, Fear of Daily Activities Questionnaire, Edgren Side Step Test, and 30-second chair stand. Future randomized controlled trials to study the effectiveness of the CAREN intervention should include military-relevant outcomes and cost efficiency.