Search

Background: Despite the ongoing opioid epidemic, most patients are still prescribed a significant number of opioid medications for pain management after arthroscopic surgery. There is a need for consensus among orthopaedic surgeons and solutions to aid providers in analgesic strategies that reduce the use of opioid pain medications., Purpose: This position statement was developed with a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery., Study Design: Position statement., Methods: The Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until August 10, 2022. Keywords included arthroscopy , opioids , analgesia , and pain , and associated variations. We included exclusively RCTs on adult patients to gather the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, pain, and opioid data were extracted, data were analyzed, and trial bias was evaluated., Results: A total of 21 RCTs were identified related to the prescription of opioid-sparing pain medication after arthroscopic surgery. The following recommendations regarding noninvasive, postoperative pain management strategies were made: (1) multimodal oral nonopioid analgesic regimens-including at least 1 of acetaminophen-a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-can significantly reduce opioid consumption with no change in pain scores; (2) cryotherapy is likely to help with pain management, although the evidence on the optimal method of application (continuous-flow vs ice pack application) is unclear; (3) and (4) limited RCT evidence supports the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and relaxation exercises in reducing opioid consumption after arthroscopy; and (5) limited RCT evidence exists against the efficacy of transdermal lidocaine patches in reducing opioid consumption., Conclusion: A range of nonopioid strategies exist that can reduce postarthroscopic procedural opioid consumption with equivalent vocal pain outcomes. Optimal strategies include multimodal analgesia with education and restricted/reduced opioid prescription., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: O.R.A. has received nonconsulting fees from CONMED. I.W. has received consulting fees from DePuy Mitek, Smith & Nephew, COMED, and Bioventus. J.W. has received research support from Arthrex, CONMED, Linvatec, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet; and education payments from Arthrex, CONMED, Linvatec, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet. J.G. has received research support from JRF Ortho, Arthrex, MiMedX, and InGeneron; education payments from Arthrex; and consulting fees from JRF Ortho, Vericel, Arthrex, and Tactile Orthopaedics. M.P. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and CONMED. R.D. has received research support from Smith & Nephew and honoraria from Sanofi. R.M. has received education payments from Arthrex, Gemini Medical, Smith & Nephew, and Linvatec; and consulting fees from Smith & Nephew. M.E.L. has received research support from Arthrex, CONMED, Linvatec, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet; and education payments from Arthrex, CONMED, Linvatec, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet. B.M. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and honoraria from Pendopharm. R.K.M has received a grant from Smith & Nephew; consulting fees from Smith & Nephew and Arthrex; nonconsulting fees from Tactile Orthopaedics; royalties from Tactile Orthopaedics; stock from Tactile Orthopaedics; and is on the Board for Tactile Orthopaedics. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Background: The all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) procedure uses a single hamstring tendon folded twice and secured to itself to form a 4-stranded graft. There are several possible configurations for preparing the graft., Purpose: To investigate the biomechanical properties of a new graft preparation technique in comparison with 2 commonly used configurations., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: Five porcine flexor tendons were prepared into the test graft configuration: side-to-side fixation with a backup fixation at the button loop (graft M). The test configuration was compared with the results of a previous study that included grafts with simple interrupted sutures (graft A; n = 5) and end-to-end fixation (graft C; n = 5). All grafts were subjected to the same mechanical testing protocol to determine the mean failure load, stiffness, rate of elongation, and total elongation during both cyclic loading and pull to failure. Differences between groups were evaluated., Results: Graft A had a significantly lower failure load (637 ± 99 N) compared with graft M (883 ± 66 N; P = .002) and graft C (846 ± 26 N; P = .002). Graft A also had significantly lower stiffness (166 ± 12 N/mm) compared with graft M (215 ± 8 N/mm; P < .001) and graft C (212 ± 11 N/mm; P < .001). Graft C had a significantly lower elongation during cyclic loading (3.42 ± 0.24 mm) compared with graft M (4.37 ± 0.74 mm; P = .026) and graft A (4.90 ± 0.88 mm; P = .006). The unsecured fixation was the weakest graft, with the lowest failure load and stiffness. The new side-to-side configuration and end-to-end configuration were equally strong., Conclusion: The new side-to-side configuration was not biomechanically superior to the end-to-end configuration; however, they were both stronger than unsecured fixation., Clinical Relevance: As the all-inside ACLR is gaining popularity, this study provides surgeons with a new method of preparing grafts and evaluates the method with respect to currently used configurations., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: Support for this study was received from the Edmonton Civic Employees Charitable Fund. The adjustable button-loop devices used were contributed by Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2021.)