There have been no studies assessing the acceptability of opioid tapering in the pre-arthroplasty setting. This qualitative study aimed to (1) explore barriers and facilitators to opioid tapering amongst patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and (2) explore the similarities and differences in acceptability of opioid tapering between pre-arthroplasty patients and those participating in a biopsychosocial pain management program. From January 2021, adult participants diagnosed with CNCP and taking opioids daily (any dose at time of screening for a period of 3 months) were recruited from either Fairfield Orthopaedic Hip and Knee Service (FOHKS) or Liverpool Hospital Pain Clinic (LHPC). Semi-structured interviews underwent thematic analysis using the framework method. 17 participants were recruited (FOHKS, n=9, mean age 67, female 77%, LHPC, n=8, mean age 54, female 63%). Both groups had participants who; (i) were reluctant to use opioid medications and used them out of “necessity”, (ii) were reluctant to taper due to concerns of worsening pain, quality of life, (iii) believed opioids were “toxins” causing bodily harm. Some FOHKS participants believed tapering should be a post-operative focus, whilst others believed tapering opioids pre-operatively will assist in post-op pain management. Few LHPC participants felt dependent/addicted to opioids, thus driving their intention to taper opioids. The belief of tapering opioids causing worse pain was based on either previous experiences or concerns alone. Some FOHKS participants were more inclined to taper opioids if they were educated on the chronic and peri-operative risks associated with using opioids at time of arthroplasty. Opioid users recognise the harms associated with chronic opioid use and believe they are used out of desperation for adequate analgesia, function, and quality of life. Tapering opioids in the pre-arthroplasty context may need coupling with patient education highlighting the importance of opioid tapering pre-operatively

Introduction. Regional anesthesia is commonly utilized to minimize postoperative pain, improve function, and allow earlier rehabilitation following Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). The adductor canal block (ACB) provides effective analgesia of the anterior knee. However, patients will often experience posterior pain not covered by the ACB requiring supplemental opioid medications. A technique involving infiltration of local anesthetic between the popliteal artery and capsule of knee (IPACK) targets the terminal branches of the sciatic nerve, providing an alternative for controlling posterior knee pain following TKA. Materials and Methods. IRB approval was obtained, a power analysis was performed, and all patients gave informed consent. Eligible patients were those scheduled for an elective unilateral, primary TKA, who were ≥ 18 years old, English speaking, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) classification I-III. Exclusion criteria included contraindication to regional anesthesia or peripheral nerve blocks, allergy to local anesthetics, allergy to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), chronic renal insufficiency with GFR < 60, chronic pain not related to the operative joint, chronic (> 3 month) opioid use, pre-existing peripheral neuropathy involving the operative limb, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. . Patients were randomized into one of two treatment arms: Continuous ACB with IPACK (IPACK Group) block or Continuous ACB with sham subcutaneous saline injection (No IPACK Group). IPACK Group received single injection of 20 mL 0.25% Ropivacaine. Postoperatively, all patients received a standardized multimodal analgesic regimen. The study followed a double-blinded format. Only the anesthesiologist performing the block was aware of randomization status. Following surgery, a blinded medical assessor recorded cumulative opioid consumption, average and worst pain scores, and gait distance. Results. 72 people were enrolled in the study and three withdrew. There were 35 people in the IPACK group and 34 in the NO IPACK group. There was no difference demographically between the groups. In the Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU), the average (P=0.0122) and worst (P=0.0168) pain scores at rest were statistically lower in the IPACK group. There was no difference in the pain scores during physical therapy. (P=0.2080) There was no difference in opioid consumption in the PACU (P=0.7928), at 8 hours (P=0.2867), 16 hours (P=0.2387), 24 hours (P=0.7456), or 30 hours (P=0.8029). There was no difference in pain scores on POD 1 in the AM (P=0.4597) or PM (P=0.6273), nor was there any difference in walking distance (P=0.5197). There was also no difference in length of stay in the PACU (P=0.9426) or hospital (P=0.2141) between the two groups. Discussion/Conclusion. Overall, pain was well controlled between the two groups. The IPACK group had lower pain scores at rest in the PACU, but this may not be clinically significant. The routine use of the IPACK is not supported by the results of this study. There may be use of the IPACK block as a rescue block or in patients whom have contraindications to our standard multimodal treatment regimen, or in patients with chronic pain or opioid dependence

Virtual encounters have experienced an exponential rise amid the current COVID-19 crisis. This abrupt change, seen in response to unprecedented medical and environmental challenges, has been forced upon the orthopaedic community. However, such changes to adopting virtual care and technology were already in the evolution forecast, albeit in an unpredictable timetable impeded by regulatory and financial barriers. This adoption is not meant to replace, but rather augment established, traditional models of care while ensuring patient/provider safety, especially during the pandemic. While our department, like those of other institutions, has performed virtual care for several years, it represented a small fraction of daily care. The pandemic required an accelerated and comprehensive approach to the new reality. Contemporary literature has already shown equivalent safety and patient satisfaction, as well as superior efficiency and reduced expenses with musculoskeletal virtual care (MSKVC) versus traditional models. Nevertheless, current literature detailing operational models of MSKVC is scarce. The current review describes our pre-pandemic MSKVC model and the shift to a MSKVC pandemic workflow that enumerates the conceptual workflow organization (patient triage, from timely care provision based on symptom acuity/severity to a continuum that includes future follow-up). Furthermore, specific setup requirements (both resource/personnel requirements such as hardware, software, and network connectivity requirements, and patient/provider characteristics respectively), and professional expectations are outlined. MSKVC has already become a pivotal element of musculoskeletal care, due to COVID-19, and these changes are confidently here to stay. Readiness to adapt and evolve will be required of individual musculoskeletal clinical teams as well as organizations, as established paradigms evolve.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:272–280.