RESUMO
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsg.2022.02.009.].
RESUMO
Purpose: Medical cannabis (MC) has been proposed as a potential addition to multimodal pain management regimens in orthopedics. This study evaluates hand and upper-extremity patient perspectives of MC as a treatment for common orthopedic and musculoskeletal pain conditions. This study also aims to identify the proportion of patients already using MC, perceived barriers to MC use, and opinions on insurance coverage and legality of cannabis. Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey study was conducted of all patients at least 18 years old presenting from October 2020 to January 2021 to a hand and upper-extremity outpatient clinic. The survey collected information regarding opinion on MC, including use, legality, and willingness to use MC in the future. Medical cannabis was legal in the states where the study was conducted. Results: A total of 679 patients completed the survey (response rate 72.5%). Sixty-eight patients (10.0%) reported currently using MC. Of the 623 patients (90.0%) who reported not currently using MC, 504 (80.9%) would consider using MC for chronic pain, while the remaining 119 (19.1%) would not consider the use of MC for chronic pain. Age was not associated with whether a patient would consider using MC (P = .16) or was already using MC (P = .10). The most identified barrier to MC use was cost, reported as either expensive or not affordable by 477 patients (70.5%). Conclusions: This study found that most patients presenting for hand and upper-extremity complaints would consider using MC (80.9%), and most perceive it as a safe treatment option for common orthopedic conditions. Moreover, 10% of patients reported already using MC. One of the major barriers to MC use is the cost. Most (90.9%) patients support policies for legalization and insurance coverage of MC. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To compare pain experience and opioid use after distal radius fracture repair surgery performed with perioperative infiltration of the local anesthesia bupivacaine hydrochloride (Marcaine; Pfizer, New York, NY) or bupivacaine liposome (Exparel; Pacira, Parsippany, NJ). METHODS: We conducted a prospective comparison of consecutive patients scheduled to undergo distal radius fracture repair surgery. Patients were randomized to either Marcaine or Exparel. Patients in the Marcaine group received 20 mL 0.5% bupivacaine without epinephrine into the incision and surgical site before incision. Patients in the Exparel group first received 10 mL 0.5% Marcaine with no epinephrine into the incision and surgical site before incision; then, upon completion of the surgery and wound closure, they also received 10 mL Exparel into the same site that had been preinjected with Marcaine. All operations were performed with the same surgical technique. Daily opioid pill consumption, pain levels, and any adverse reactions were recorded from postoperative days 0 to 5. RESULTS: On the day of surgery, patients in the Exparel group reported significantly lower pain levels (3.9 vs 5.8) and consumed significantly fewer prescribed opioid pills (1.2 vs 2.0) compared with patients in the Marcaine group. However, there were no other significant differences between the Exparel and Marcaine groups on any subsequent days or in the total number of pills consumed at the end of the study period (7.5 vs 8.9 pills, respectively). No major adverse reactions were noted in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Exparel use was found to result in decreased pain and opioid consumption only on the day of surgery and not thereafter. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.