Liposomal Bupivacaine Use in Third Molar Impaction Surgery: INNOVATE Study

Advances in the use of local anesthetic extended-release systems in pain management

Pain management remains among the most common and largely unmet clinical problems today. Local anesthetics play an indispensable role in pain management. The main limitation of traditional local anesthetics is the limited duration of a single injection. To address this problem, catheters are often placed or combined with other drugs in clinical practice to increase the time that local anesthetics act. However, this method does not meet the needs of clinical analgesics. Therefore, many researchers have worked to develop local anesthetic extended-release types that can be administered in a single dose. In recent years, drug extended-release systems have emerged dramatically due to their long duration and efficacy, providing more possibilities for the application of local anesthetics. This paper summarizes the types of local anesthetic drug delivery systems and their clinical applications, discusses them in the context of relevant studies on local anesthetics, and provides a summary and outlook on the development of local anesthetic extended-release agents.

Are Patients Interested in Liposomal Bupivacaine as a Nonopioid Alternative for Postsurgical Analgesia Following Third Molar Extractions?

BACKGROUND

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a long-acting local anesthetic used for postsurgical analgesia to reduce pain and the need for opioid pain medication.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess patient interest in the use of LB as an alternative to opioid pain medication following third molar extraction.

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was performed. Study subjects included patients 17 years old or greater who presented to the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery clinic at Thomas Jefferson University for third molar extraction from May 2019 through January 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLES

The primary outcome variable was patient interest in LB, defined by "yes" or "no" from the survey question: "would you be interested in an alternative medication administered during the procedure that may decrease the need for opioid pain medication?". The secondary outcome variable was patient willingness to pay (WTP) for LB, defined by the out-of-pocket cost threshold patients reported they would pay.

COVARIATES

Covariates included patient demographics, attitudes towards opioid medication, and prior opioid use.

ANALYSES

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests, Kendall's tau correlation, and multivariable logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at P value < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 183 subjects completed the study (68% female, 32% male). The mean age was 27.5 years ± 11.1 years. Most subjects (76%) were interested in LB, but 88% had a WTP threshold below $200. Interest in LB was associated with higher WTP thresholds (adjusted odds ratio {aOR} 2.07; 95% confidence interval {CI} [1.48, 3.13]; P < .001). There was also an association between interest and subjects concerned of the addictive potential of opioids (aOR 4.04; 95% CI [1.52, 11.49]; P = .01) and between interest and previous use of prescribed opioid medication (aOR 6.00; 95% CI [1.59, 31.23]; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although most subjects were interested in LB, the current out-of-pocket cost of LB appears to be a barrier to patient acceptability. A lower cost option may increase the accessibility and adoption of this nonopioid analgesic for postoperative pain control in third molar extractions.

Provider-directed analgesia for dental pain

INTRODUCTION

Extraction of impacted molar teeth is a common procedure performed by oral surgeons and general dentists, with postoperative pain being a significant adverse event post-surgery. If mismanaged, pain can lead to complications that impact oral and systemic health. The current scourge of the opioid epidemic has ushered in a new era of provider-directed analgesic (PDA) therapy in dentistry.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides an in-depth review on the major pharmacological and therapeutic properties of established and alternative analgesics used to manage dental pain.

EXPERT OPINION

Substantial evidence-based literature shows combination of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID; e.g. ibuprofen) and acetaminophen provides superior pain relief than single-agent or combination opioid regimens. However, there are clinical scenarios (e.g. severe pain) when short-course opioid prescription is appropriate in select patients, in which a 2-3-day treatment duration is typically sufficient. Alternative agents (e.g. caffeine, gabapentin, phytotherapies), typically in combination with established agents, can mitigate postoperative dental pain. Some evidence suggests preemptive therapies (e.g. corticosteroids, NSAIDs) reduce amounts of postsurgical analgesic consumption and might lessen opioid prescription burden. In summary, this comprehensive review provides an opportune update on the evolving landscape of pharmacotherapy for acute postsurgical dental pain, informing best practices for PDA in the dental setting.

Considerations for Satisfactory Sedation during Dental Implant Surgery

Implant surgery is a lengthy dental procedure, and sedation is often used to reduce discomfort. The effectiveness of sedation has traditionally been evaluated in terms of patient and surgeon satisfaction, but the most important goal is not to induce a deep sleep in the patient, but rather to ensure that the surgery is performed safely and as planned. Additionally, adequate pain control is a necessary requirement for patient and surgeon satisfaction. Most patients undergoing implant surgery are middle-aged or older, and a relatively large number of them have cardiovascular disease. Infiltration anesthesia using articaine or lidocaine in combination with adrenaline is widely used, but its use in patients with cardiovascular disease is limited because of adrenaline’s effects on the cardiovascular system. The use of long-acting local anesthetics and the potential efficacy of ultrasound-guided jaw nerve block have been investigated to enhance analgesia without resorting to adrenaline. Midazolam and propofol are usually used for sedation, but dexmedetomidine, which causes less respiratory depression, and the ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine remimazolam are emerging as potential alternatives. Monitoring of anesthetic depth using electroencephalography is effective in maintaining a constant level of sedation. In addition, sedation promotes the stabilization of heart rate and blood pressure, reducing the risks associated with adrenaline and allowing for safer management.

Liposomal Bupivacaine in Dentistry and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. A Review of Human and Veterinary Literature

This article reviews the human and veterinary literature regarding liposome encapsulated bupivacaine use in dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery. The purpose of this review is to present available information on this local anesthetic in a manner that will allow veterinary dentists and oral and maxillofacial surgeons to use evidence-based information when considering incorporating liposomal bupivacaine into their practice. The twelve human clinical studies and three veterinary reports that met the literature search criteria do not support the use of liposomal bupivacaine in veterinary dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Pain Levels Did Not Differ Following Uncomplicated Third Molar Extractions Utilizing Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Standard Bupivacaine

PURPOSE

Operations in the oral cavity are often characterized by an acute period of postoperative pain historically mitigated via opioids and other analgesics. The purpose of the study was to determine if liposomal bupivacaine infiltration (LBI) following uncomplicated extraction of bilateral, mandibular third molars will significantly reduce postoperative pain when compared to standard bupivacaine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a parallel-arm randomized clinical trial. The sample size was calculated for the primary outcome variable: postoperative pain levels measured at 48-hours. Using a power analysis, a sample size of n = 13 for each group was required. Patients meeting the inclusion/exclusion criteria requiring exodontia from November 4, 2018, to June 16, 2022, were recruited out of the oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic. The patients were randomized and divided into 2 groups. Group A was administered 0.50% bupivacaine (with 1:200,000 epinephrine) via infiltration while group B underwent LBI. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative pain levels followed by the secondary outcomes of postoperative narcotic analgesic use, return to oral function, and satisfaction. Patient demographics and characteristics were analyzed as potential covariates utilizing the Fisher exact test and t test for continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were recruited for the study. The average age of patients receiving the third molar operation was 24.1 ± 5.8 years. Of the 30, 62.5% were female, and 37.5% were male. Seventy-five percent of the patients were Caucasian, 20.8% were African American, and 4.2% were Asian. Forty-eight-hour postoperative interviews revealed mean pain levels of 2.5 ± 2.8 in the control group and 2.9 ± 2.3 in the LBI group (P = .730) as measured on a visual analog scale. The 48-hour postoperative interview identified a mean of 1.9 ± 2.1 narcotic pills used in the control group and 2.5 ± 5.0 pills used in the LBI group (P = .693).

CONCLUSIONS

Mandibular LBIs following bilateral mandibular third molar extractions showed no statistically significant advantage over the standard bupivacaine at either time point analyzed. Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found regarding narcotic use between the 2 groups.

A Comprehensive Single-Center Analysis of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting Following Orthognathic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a major clinical end-point for directing enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in facial plastic surgery. This study aimed to identify risk factors for PONV and evaluate strategies for PONV reduction in orthognathic surgery patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed among patients receiving orthognathic surgery at our institution from 2011 to 2018. Patient demographics, surgical operative and anesthesia notes, medications, and nausea/vomiting were assessed for each patient. The amount of opioid analgesia given both perioperatively and postoperatively was recorded and converted into morphine equivalents (MEQ). Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify significant risk factors for PONV. Post hoc analyses were employed to compare PONV among patients based on MEQ dosage and antiemetic prophylaxis regimes.

RESULTS

A total of 492 patients were included; mean age was 23.0 years (range: 13-60); 54.4% were female. The majority of patients received concurrent Le Fort I osteotomy, BSSO, and genioplasty (70.1%). During hospitalization, 59.4% of patients experienced nausea requiring antiemetic medications and 28.4% experienced emesis. Stepwise regression yielded Apfel scores (P = 0.003) and postoperative opioids (P = 0.013) as the strongest predictors of PONV. Post hoc analyses showed that undertreatment with prophylactic antiemetics (based on Apfel) predicted increased PONV (+12.9%, P = 0.020), and that lower postoperative MEQs (<28.0) predicted decreased PONV (-11.8%, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The study findings confirm the high incidence of PONV among orthognathic surgical patients and stratify previously reported PONV risk factors. More aggressive utilization of antiemetic medications and decreased dependence on opioid analgesia may decrease nausea/vomiting following orthognathic surgery.

Overcoming barriers by local drug delivery with liposomes

Localized or topical administration of drugs may be considered as a potential approach for overcoming the problems caused by the various biological barriers encountered in drug delivery. The combination of using localized administration routes and delivering drugs in nanoparticulate formulations, such as liposomes, may have additional advantages. Such advantages include prolonged retention of high drug loads at the site of action and controlled release of the drug, ensuring prolonged therapeutic effect; decreased potential for side-effects and toxicity (due to the high topical concentrations of drugs); and increased protection of drugs from possible harsh environments at the site of action. The use of targeted liposomal formulations may further potentiate any acquired therapeutic advantages. In this review we present the most advanced cases of localized delivery of liposomal formulations of drugs, which have been investigated pre-clinically and clinically in the last ten years, together with the reported therapeutic advantages, in each case.

Pharmacological and Non-Pharmacological Methods of Postoperative Pain Control Following Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To conduct a scoping review regarding current pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of postoperative pain control following oral and maxillofacial surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was used to conduct research for this study. Identification criteria included surgery: patients undergoing the extraction of third molars; therapy: pharmacological or non-pharmacological methods; and outcomes: postoperative pain control. The search included full-text RCTs published after October 13, 2014, that were electronically accessible on PubMed and in the English language. After assessing quality, a scoping review was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs were evaluated, which included a total of 3,791 subjects. The studies evaluated patients' postoperative pain by either utilizing a visual analogue scale (VAS), measuring the time between surgery and when rescue analgesics were used, measuring the amount of rescue analgesics used, or by distributing questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

COX-2 inhibitors may provide greater analgesic effects compared to traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Additionally, although the supplementation of an opioid analgesic to a NSAID regimen provides an increase in pain control, it does not further reduce pain levels in a patient alternating between ibuprofen and acetaminophen. Other methods of postoperative pain control mentioned in this review should be further explored in studies that contain larger sample sizes and that evaluate side effects of the treatment.

The Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine for Opioid and Pain Reduction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background The opioid crisis has prompted surgeons to search for alternative postoperative methods of analgesia. Liposomal bupivacaine is a long-acting local anesthetic formulation used for pain, potentially reducing opioid use. Evaluation of liposomal bupivacaine as a viable alternative for pain management is needed. The objective was to assess the efficacy of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of liposomal bupivacaine in postoperative pain management and opioid consumption. Material and Methods The authors extracted RCTs comparing liposomal bupivacaine versus placebo or active comparators for postoperative pain or opioid reduction from PubMED/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Exclusion criteria included nonhuman studies, non-RCTs, pooled studies, and inability to access full text. The following variables were abstracted: surgical specialty, number of subjects, pain and opioid outcomes, and authors' financial conflicts of interest. Results We identified 77 published RCTs, of which 63 studies with a total of 6770 subjects met inclusion criteria. Liposomal bupivacaine did not demonstrate significant pain relief compared to placebo or active agents in 74.58% of RCTs. Of the studies evaluating narcotic use, liposomal bupivacaine did not show a reduction in opioid consumption in 85.71% of RCTs. Liposomal bupivacaine, when compared to standard bupivacaine or another active agent, yielded no reduction in opioid use in 83.33% and 100.00% of studies, respectively. Clinical trials with a financial conflict of interest relating to the manufacturer of liposomal bupivacaine were significantly more likely to show pain relief (OR: 14.31 [95% CI, 2.8, 73.10], P = 0.0001) and decreased opioid consumption (OR: 12.35 [95% CI 1.40, 109.07], P = 0.0237). Of the 265 unpublished RCTs on ClinicalTrials.gov, 47.54% were withdrawn, terminated, suspended, or completed without study results available. Conclusions The efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine for providing superior postoperative pain control relative to placebo or another active agent is not supported by a majority of RCTs. Underreporting of trial results and bias due to underlying financial relationships amongst authors are two major concerns that should be considered when evaluating the available evidence.

A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of the Effect of Liposomal Bupivacaine on Postoperative Opioid Prescribing After Third Molar Extraction

PURPOSE

Reducing opioid prescriptions after third molar extraction may decrease the risk of opioid dependence. This study compared prescribed morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) in patients undergoing mandibular third molar removal with and without use of liposomal bupivacaine (LB).

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included deidentified data from electronic medical records of patients who underwent extraction of ≥1 partial bony-or full bony-impacted mandibular third molar at 2 oral surgery centers in the United States in 2012 or 2018. The primary predictor variable was use of LB 133 mg. The primary outcome variable was total prescribed opioids in MMEs. The secondary outcome variable was rate of prescription refills. Both univariate and multivariable regression analyses were used to compare MMEs between groups with a significance level of P < .05.

RESULTS

The study sample included 600 subjects (n = 300 each for LB and non-LB groups). Mean age (22-24 years) and sex distribution (55%-58% female) were comparable between groups, although significant differences were observed in anesthesia type and race distribution (P < .05). In univariate analysis, the LB group was prescribed 59% fewer MMEs than the non-LB group (47.1 vs 113.8 MMEs; rate ratio, 0.41 [0.39-0.44]; P < .0001). After adjustment for age, sex, anesthesia type, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and complications, the LB group was prescribed significantly fewer total opioids (adjusted MMEs, 44.9 vs 109.5; rate ratio, 0.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.44]; P < .0001) and had a significantly lower opioid prescription refill rate (3.3% vs 7.7%; odds ratio, 0.38 [95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.90]; P = .028) than the non-LB group. Complication rates were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing third molar extraction and receiving LB were prescribed significantly fewer opioids than patients who did not receive LB, with a lower refill rate. Use of LB may reduce opioid prescriptions for postsurgical analgesia.

The Safety Profile of Liposomal Bupivacaine Use in Septorhinoplasty

Objective: To evaluate the safety profile, including adverse drug reactions and operative complications, of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) use for local anesthesia during functional septorhinoplasty. Study Design: Retrospective review. Subject and Methods: A database query was conducted for patients >18 years of age who underwent septorhinoplasty from January 1, 2019, to August 1, 2020. Adverse drug reactions and postoperative outcomes were compared between patients who received locally administered LB and patients who received standard local anesthetic at the completion of the surgery. Results: A total of 95 cases were included in our data analysis. No significant differences were found in adverse reactions overall (6.3% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.51) or complications, including rate of infection (3.2% vs. 3.1%, p = 1), cartilage warping (1.6% vs. 0%, p = 1), graft resorption (0% vs. 0%, p = 1), septal hematoma (0% vs. 0%, p = 1), and need for revision surgery (4.8% vs. 3.1%, p = 1) between LB and control groups. Conclusion: LB demonstrated an acceptable safety profile when compared with standard local anesthetics during septorhinoplasty, with no significant difference in systemic or local adverse drug reactions or postoperative complications.

Clinical Effectiveness of Liposomal Bupivacaine Administered by Infiltration or Peripheral Nerve Block to Treat Postoperative Pain

The authors provide a comprehensive summary of all randomized, controlled trials (n = 76) involving the clinical administration of liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel; Pacira Pharmaceuticals, USA) to control postoperative pain that are currently published. When infiltrated surgically and compared with unencapsulated bupivacaine or ropivacaine, only 11% of trials (4 of 36) reported a clinically relevant and statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome favoring liposomal bupivacaine. Ninety-two percent of trials (11 of 12) suggested a peripheral nerve block with unencapsulated bupivacaine provides superior analgesia to infiltrated liposomal bupivacaine. Results were mixed for the 16 trials comparing liposomal and unencapsulated bupivacaine, both within peripheral nerve blocks. Overall, of the trials deemed at high risk for bias, 84% (16 of 19) reported statistically significant differences for their primary outcome measure(s) compared with only 14% (4 of 28) of those with a low risk of bias. The preponderance of evidence fails to support the routine use of liposomal bupivacaine over standard local anesthetics.

Assessing the Effectiveness of Combined Analgesics for Bilateral Ramus Osteotomies

Pain management is important for alleviating patients' suffering and early recovery. Although analgesic combinations are known to be effective, a comparison of the effectiveness of different combinations has never been performed specifically for ramus osteotomy procedures. Therefore, the purpose of this observational retrospective cohort study was to identify an effective combination for pain management throughout the intraoperative and immediate postoperative period for patients undergoing bilateral ramus osteotomy procedures. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who had undergone bilateral mandibular ramus osteotomies over a 2-year period. The analyzed predictor variables included patient gender, age, body weight, operation, anesthetic method, duration of operation, intraoperative use of fentanyl, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and intravenous acetaminophen administered in the operating room at the end of the surgery. The outcome variable was the necessity for additional rescue analgesics (yes/no) in the recovery room. Bivariate statistics and multivariate analysis were computed with a p-value of <0.05. The study sample was comprised of 78 patients requiring bilateral mandibular ramus osteotomies. From the multivariate analysis, the combination of NSAIDs-acetaminophen-fentanyl was an independent factor for no additional rescue analgesics during the first 1 hour after bilateral ramus osteotomies, indicating that the combination is significantly effective for bilateral ramus osteotomies compared with the other combinations. Considering that this study consisted of a small sample size, the results of this study suggest that some of the combinations, particularly NSAIDs-acetaminophen-fentanyl, are more effective than NSAIDs alone for postoperative pain control immediately following bilateral ramus osteotomy procedures.

Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the different local anaesthetic agents for the extraction of impacted lower third molars. A network meta-analysis was performed of all published reports of randomized controlled clinical trials assessing efficacy (anaesthetic success and absence of need for supplementary anaesthesia during the surgical procedure) and/or safety (number of adverse events) of anaesthetic agents. Three electronic databases were searched, from their earliest records up to April 2019. Additionally, the grey literature was searched to identify further potential candidates for inclusion. Anaesthesia had to be delivered by an inferior alveolar nerve block, complemented with infiltration anaesthesia of the buccal nerve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. This study included a total of 21 trials (2021 molars) assessing the efficacy and 19 trials (1977 molars) assessing the safety of 11 anaesthetic solutions. Seven of the studies included were considered to have a high risk of bias. The most effective local anaesthetic for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars appeared to be 4% articaine, with significant differences when compared with 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 1% ropivacaine. Lidocaine is the safest local anaesthetic, although all investigated solutions can be used safely.

Managing Acute Dental Pain: Principles for Rational Prescribing and Alternatives to Opioid Therapy

Pharmacotherapy forms an integral part of acute dental pain management. In a majority of cases, safe and effective management of acute dental pain can be accomplished with a non-opioid medication regimen. Nonetheless, in certain circumstances use of opioid medications may be needed. Furthermore, there are various pain management regimens, such as pre-emptive analgesia, post-procedural cold compression, use of long acting anesthetic, and compound drug therapy that can improve the efficacy of analgesics to achieve a desired therapeutic response without compromising patient safety.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Opioids in Postsurgical Dental Pain

Postsurgical dental pain is mainly driven by inflammation, particularly through the generation of prostaglandins via the cyclooxygenase system. Thus, it is no surprise that numerous randomized placebo-controlled trials studying acute pain following the surgical extraction of impacted third molars have demonstrated the remarkable efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen, naproxen sodium, etodolac, diclofenac, and ketorolac in this prototypic condition of acute inflammatory pain. Combining an optimal dose of an NSAID with an appropriate dose of acetaminophen appears to further enhance analgesic efficacy and potentially reduce the need for opioids. In addition to being on average inferior to NSAIDs as analgesics in postsurgical dental pain, opioids produce a higher incidence of side effects in dental outpatients, including dizziness, drowsiness, psychomotor impairment, nausea/vomiting, and constipation. Unused opioids are also subject to misuse and diversion, and they may cause addiction. Despite these risks, some dental surgical outpatients may benefit from a 1- or 2-d course of opioids added to their NSAID regimen. NSAID use may carry significant risks in certain patient populations, in which a short course of an acetaminophen/opioid combination may provide a more favorable benefit versus risk ratio than an NSAID regimen.

The Role of Exparel Plus Meloxicam for Postoperative Pain Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute postoperative pain reduction is a major target against the opioid crisis. While opioids have traditionally been the mainstay for postoperative analgesia, current practice has focused on a multimodal approach to pain control, including ultrasound-guided blocks with longer acting local anesthetic agents.

RECENT FINDINGS

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as meloxicam, are an important class of medications utilized to manage pain in the perioperative period. An additional treatment used in perioperative or postoperative pain relief is Exparel, a bupivacaine (sodium channel blocker) liposomal injectable suspension with a 3-4-day duration of action. The long-acting mechanism and formulation of Exparel consistently has demonstrated decreased opioid use and pain scores in patients undergoing many different surgical procedures. A concern is that pH negatively alters the efficacy of bupivacaine, as in cases of inflamed tissue and acidic fluid pH. For this reason, a combination medication with both meloxicam and bupivacaine has been developed, which normalizes pH and has anti-inflammatory and anti-pain conduction properties. Clinical studies demonstrate that this combination agent can be extremely beneficial in treating postoperative pain. This manuscript summarizes the newest developments with regard to liposomal bupivacaine and the non-steroidal meloxicam, their roles in effective treatment of postoperative pain, contraindications, special considerations of using these medications, and future considerations. HTX-011 pairs up a new extended-release formulation of the local anesthetic bupivacaine with meloxicam, a well-established non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID).

Opioid Prescribing Can Be Reduced in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Practice

PURPOSE

Pain management is one of the most critical aspects of practice in oral and maxillofacial surgery. The purpose of this study was to measure the change in strong (stronger than codeine 30 mg) opioid use after introducing the standardized protocol ("office protocol") designed for opioid-free postoperative pain management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had surgical procedures performed at the NorthShore Center for Oral and Facial Surgery (Gurnee, IL). Data of patients who underwent qualified surgical procedures and filled prescriptions for strong opioids before and after introduction of the office protocol were analyzed. The primary predictor variable was introduction of the office protocol. The primary outcome variable was filling of a strong opioid prescription that was correlated to pain control as assessed by patients. Age and gender distributions also were analyzed. Proportions and associated 95% confidence intervals were used to compare the number of hydrocodone or oxycodone (strong) prescriptions filled by patients during a 3-year interval.

RESULTS

In March 2016, the office protocol for pain management, designed to decrease opioid use, was introduced. In 2015 (before introduction of the office protocol), 2,016 adult patients (15 to 85 yr old) underwent qualified surgical procedures at the author's practice, 1,184 (59%) of whom required and filled strong opioid prescriptions. In 2017 (2 yr after introduction of the office procedure) that number decreased to 19%, whereas the number of qualified surgical procedures performed remained relatively the same between the years. Postoperative pain control was not qualitatively measured but was assumed adequate and correlated with the filling of a strong opioid prescription or requiring a refill, which would be recorded as part of total prescriptions filled.

CONCLUSION

A 3-fold decrease in hydrocodone or oxycodone prescription fill was seen at the 2-year interval. As alternatives, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and a homeopathic recovery kit (Vega Recovery Kit, StellaLife, Glenview, IL) were used for pain management for patients undergoing various oral surgery procedures.

Association of Opioid Prescriptions From Dental Clinicians for US Adolescents and Young Adults With Subsequent Opioid Use and Abuse

Importance

Through prescription writing, dental clinicians are a potential source of initial opioid exposure and subsequent abuse for adolescents and young adults.

Objective

To examine the association between index dental opioid prescriptions from dental clinicians for opioid-naive adolescents and young adults in 2015 and new persistent use and subsequent diagnoses of abuse in this population.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study examined outpatient opioid prescriptions for patients aged 16 to 25 years in the Optum Research Database in 2015. Prescriptions were linked by National Provider Identifier number to a clinician category.

Exposures

Individuals were included in the index dental opioid (opioid-exposed) cohort if they filled an opioid prescription from a dental clinician in 2015, had continuous health plan coverage and no record of opioid prescriptions for 12 months before receiving the prescription, and had 12 months of health plan coverage after receiving the prescription. Two age- and sex-matched opioid-nonexposed control individuals were selected for each opioid-exposed individual and were assigned a corresponding phantom prescription date.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of an opioid prescription within 90 to 365 days, a health care encounter diagnosis associated with opioid abuse within 365 days, and all-cause mortality within 365 days of the index opioid or phantom prescription date.

Results

Among 754 002 individuals with continuous enrollment in 2015, 97 462 patients (12.9%) received 1 or more opioid prescriptions, of whom 29 791 (30.6%) received prescriptions supplied by a dental clinician. The opioid-exposed cohort included 14 888 participants (7882 women [52.9%], 11 273 white [75.7%], with mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.4] years), and the randomly selected opioid-nonexposed cohort included 29 776 participants (15 764 women [52.9%], 20 078 [67.4%] white, with mean [SD] age, 21.8 [2.4] years). Among the 14 888 individuals in the index dental opioid cohort, 1021 (6.9%) received another opioid prescription 90 to 365 days later compared with 30 of 29 776 (0.1%) opioid-nonexposed controls (adjusted absolute risk difference, 6.8%; 95% CI, 6.3%-7.2%), and 866 opioid-exposed individuals (5.8%) experienced 1 or more subsequent health care encounters with an opioid abuse-related diagnosis compared with 115 opioid-nonexposed controls (0.4%) (adjusted absolute risk difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 5.0%-5.7%). There was only 1 death in each cohort.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings suggest that a substantial proportion of adolescents and young adults are exposed to opioids through dental clinicians. Use of these prescriptions may be associated with an increased risk of subsequent opioid use and abuse.

Providing Anesthesia in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Office: A Look Back, Where We Are Now and a Look Ahead

Throughout its development the practice of oral and maxillofacial surgery has been richly associated with the provision of anesthetic services. Dentists and particularly oral and maxillofacial surgeons have advanced the science associated with anesthesia especially in the outpatient setting. This article will look back on the development of anesthesia as it relates to oral and maxillofacial surgery, discuss the current mode of anesthesia in the oral surgeon's practice and look ahead to what innovations are advancing this field.