Search

Background: Given that excess opioid prescriptions contribute to the United States opioid epidemic and there are few national opioid prescribing guidelines for the management of acute pain, it is pertinent to determine if prescribers can sufficiently assess their own prescribing practice. The purpose of this study was to investigate podiatric surgeons’ ability to evaluate if their own opioid prescribing practice is less than, near, or above that of an “average” prescriber. Methods: We administered a scenario-based, voluntary, anonymous, online questionnaire via Qualtrics which consisted of five surgery-based scenarios commonly performed by podiatric surgeons. Respondents were asked the quantity of opioids they would prescribe at the time of surgery. Respondents were also asked to rate their prescribing practice compared to the average (median) podiatric surgeons. We compared self-reported behavior to self-reported perception (“I prescribe less than average,” “I prescribed about average,” and “I prescribe more than average”). ANOVA was used for univariate analysis between the three groups. We used linear regression to adjust for confounders. Data restriction was used to account for restrictive state laws. Results: One hundred fifteen podiatric surgeons completed the survey from in April 2020. Less than half of the time, respondents accurately identified their own category. Consequently, there were no statistically significant differences between podiatric surgeons who reported that they “prescribe less,” “prescribe about average,” and “prescribe more.” Paradoxically, there was a flip in scenario #5, whereas respondents who reported they “prescribe more” actually prescribed the least and respondents who believed that they “prescribe less” actually prescribed the most. Conclusions: Cognitive bias, in the form of a novel effect, occurs in postoperative opioid prescribing practice; in the absence of procedure-specific guidelines or an objective standard, podiatric surgeons, more often than not, were unaware of how their own opioid prescribing practice measured up to other podiatric surgeons.

Background: Clinicians, governmental agencies, patients, and pharmaceutical companies all contribute to the United States' opioid epidemic. These same stakeholders can make meaningful contributions to resolve the epidemic by identifying ineffective habits and encouraging change. The purpose of this study was to determine if postoperative opioid prescribing practice variation exists in foot and ankle surgery. We also aimed to identify if demographic characteristics of podiatric foot and ankle surgeons were associated with their postoperative opioid prescribing practices. Methods: We administered an open, voluntary, anonymous, online questionnaire distributed on the internet via Qualtrics, an online survey platform. The questionnaire consisted of six foot and ankle surgery scenarios followed by a demographics section. We invited Podiatric foot and ankle surgeons practicing in the United States to complete the questionnaire via email from the American Podiatric Medical Association's membership list. Respondents selected the postoperative opioid(s) that they would prescribe at the time of surgery, as well as the dose, frequency, and number of "pills" (dosage units). We developed multiple linear regression models to identify associations between prescriber characteristics and two measures of opioid quantity: dosage units and MME. Results: Eight hundred and sixty podiatric foot and ankle surgeons completed the survey. The median number of dosage units never exceeded 30 regardless of the foot and ankle surgery. Years in practice correlated with reduction in opioid dosage units prescribed at the time of surgery. Conclusions: Postoperative opioid prescribing practice variation exists in foot and ankle surgery. In comparison to the orthopedic community, podiatric foot and ankle surgeons prescribe approximately 25% fewer opioids at the time of surgery than orthopedic foot and ankle surgeons. Further research is warranted to determine if additional education is needed for young surgeons.

Previous literature has suggested both MRI and ultrasound can accurately diagnose plantar plate tears. There is a significant cost difference between these two modalities, sparking interest for which should be the preferred method for diagnosis.The purpose of this study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and dynamic, musculoskeletal ultrasound for lesser metatarsal plantar plate injuries using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched thru May 2020. We included studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of MRI or ultrasound for detecting plantar plate tears, using intraoperative confirmation as the gold standard comparison. Sensitivity and specificity were obtained and pooled from included studies. Summary receiver operating curves were formed for each diagnostic test to compare accuracy. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 scoring system.Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria, representing 227 plantar plates for MRI and 238 plantar plates for ultrasound. MRI displayed a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 0.84, 0.93) and specificity of 83% (95% CI 0.64, 0.94). Ultrasound displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 95% (95% CI 0.91, 0.98) and 52% (95% CI 0.37, 0.68), respectively.MRI was superior to ultrasound in diagnosing plantar plate injuries overall, however, ultrasound was more sensitive than MRI, suggesting a negative ultrasound would likely rule out a plantar plate injury in the presence of an equivocal physical exam. Determining the grade of the injury is best served with MRI which can provide added insight into the joint's supporting structures (e.g. collateral ligaments) and integrity.