No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: To investigate opioid utilization after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the setting of a multimodal pain regimen and assess the feasibility of prescribing fewer opioids to achieve adequate postoperative pain control. Methods: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction in conjunction with a multimodal approach to pain control were randomized to receive either 30 or 60 tablets of hydrocodone (10 mg)eacetaminophen (325 mg). Patients were contacted at multiple time points up to 21 days after surgery to assess opioid utilization and medication side effects. We compared the mean number of tablets used between groups as the primary outcome. Preoperative variables associated with an increased risk of higher opioid pain medication requirements were also assessed. Results: The final analysis included 43 patients in the 30-tablet group and 42 in the 60-tablet group. There was no significant difference between groups in the number of tablets consumed (9.5 vs 12.2, P ¼ .22), number of days opioids were required (4.5 vs 6.2, P ¼ .14), 3-month opioid refill rates (12% vs 7%, P ¼ .48), or postoperative pain control at any point up to 21 days after surgery. The 30-tablet group had a significantly smaller proportion of unused tablets compared with the 60-tablet group (69% of prescribed tablets [910 tablets] vs 80% of prescribed tablets [2,027 tablets], P < .001). Opioids were required after surgery by 91% of patients (n ¼ 77), and 81% could have had their pain medication requirements met with a prescription for 15 tablets. Risk factors for increased postoperative opioid use included a family history of substance abuse (b ¼ 14.1; 95% confidence interval, 5.7-22.4; P ¼ .0014) and increased pain score at 2 hours after surgery (b ¼ 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.064-2.07; P ¼ .037). Conclusions: Orthopaedic surgeons may significantly reduce the number opioid tablets prescribed after ACL reconstruction without affecting postoperative pain control or refill rates. Level of Evidence: Level I, randomized controlled trial.

No abstract

Background: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training restricts arterial inflow and venous outflow from the extremity and can produce gains in muscle strength at low loads. Low-load training reduces joint stress and decreases cardiovascular risk when compared with high-load training, thus making BFR an excellent option for many patients requiring rehabilitation. Indications: Blood flow restriction has shown clinical benefit in a variety of patient populations including healthy patients as well as those with osteoarthritis, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Achilles tendon rupture. Technique Description: This video demonstrates BFR training in 3 clinical areas: upper extremity resistance training, lower extremity resistance training, and low-intensity cycling. All applications of BFR first require determination of total occlusion pressure. Upper extremity training requires inflating the tourniquet to 50% of total occlusion pressure, while lower extremity exercises use 80% of total occlusion pressure. Low-load resistance training exercises follow a specific repetition scheme: 30 reps followed by a 30-second rest and then 3 sets of 15 reps with 30-seconds rest between each. During cycle training, 80% total occlusion pressure is used as the patient cycles for 15 minutes without rest. Results: Augmenting low-load resistance training with BFR increases muscle strength when compared with low-load resistance alone. In addition, low-load BFR has demonstrated an increase in muscle mass greater than low-load training alone and equivalent to high-load training absent BFR. A systematic review determined the safety of low-load training with BFR is comparable to traditional high-intensity resistance training. The most common adverse effects include exercise intolerance, discomfort, and dull pain which are also frequent in patients undergoing traditional resistance training. Severe adverse effects including deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and rhabdomyolysis are exceedingly rare, less than 0.006% according to a national survey. Patients undergoing BFR rehabilitation experience less perceived exertion and demonstrate decreased pain scores compared with high-load resistance training. Conclusion: Blood flow restriction training is an effective alternative to high-load resistance training for patients requiring musculoskeletal rehabilitation for multiple disease processes as well as in the perioperative setting. Blood flow restriction has been shown to be a safe training modality when managed by properly trained physical therapists and athletic trainers.