Kristin E Rojas1, Donna-Marie Manasseh2, Peter L Flom3, Solomon Agbroko4, Nicole Bilbro2, Charusheela Andaz2, Patrick I Borgen2. 1. Department of Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA. kristinrojasmd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Surgery, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA. 3. Peter Flom Consulting, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evolving conceptualization of the management of surgical pain was a major contributor to the supply of narcotics that led to the opioid crisis. We designed and implemented a breast surgery-specific Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol using opioid-sparing techniques to eliminate narcotic prescription at discharge without sacrificing perioperative pain control. METHODS: A pilot observational study included patients with and without cancer undergoing lumpectomy. The convenience sample consisted of an ERAS group and a control usual care (UC) group who underwent surgery during the same time period. Discharge narcotic prescriptions were compared after converting to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME's). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Ninety ERAS and 67 UC patients were enrolled. Most lumpectomies were wire-localized, and half of the patients in each group had breast cancer. There were more obese patients in the ERAS group. UC lumpectomy patients were discharged with a median of 54.5 MMEs (range 0-120), while the ERAS lumpectomy patients were discharged with none (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between groups, and there were few complications. CONCLUSION: A breast surgery-specific ERAS protocol employing opioid-sparing techniques successfully eliminated postoperative narcotic prescription without sacrificing perioperative pain control or increasing postoperative complications. By promoting the adoption of similar protocols, surgeons can continue to improve patient outcomes while decreasing the quantity of narcotics available for diversion within our patients' communities.
BACKGROUND: The evolving conceptualization of the management of surgical pain was a major contributor to the supply of narcotics that led to the opioid crisis. We designed and implemented a breast surgery-specific Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol using opioid-sparing techniques to eliminate narcotic prescription at discharge without sacrificing perioperative pain control. METHODS: A pilot observational study included patients with and without cancer undergoing lumpectomy. The convenience sample consisted of an ERAS group and a control usual care (UC) group who underwent surgery during the same time period. Discharge narcotic prescriptions were compared after converting to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME's). Postoperative day one and week one pain scores were also compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Ninety ERAS and 67 UC patients were enrolled. Most lumpectomies were wire-localized, and half of the patients in each group had breast cancer. There were more obesepatients in the ERAS group. UC lumpectomy patients were discharged with a median of 54.5 MMEs (range 0-120), while the ERAS lumpectomy patients were discharged with none (p < 0.001). Postoperative pain scores were not significantly different between groups, and there were few complications. CONCLUSION: A breast surgery-specific ERAS protocol employing opioid-sparing techniques successfully eliminated postoperative narcotic prescription without sacrificing perioperative pain control or increasing postoperative complications. By promoting the adoption of similar protocols, surgeons can continue to improve patient outcomes while decreasing the quantity of narcotics available for diversion within our patients' communities.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; ERAS; Lumpectomy; Narcotic; Opioid crisis
Authors: Heather A Lillemoe; Rebecca K Marcus; Ryan W Day; Bradford J Kim; Nisha Narula; Catherine H Davis; Vijaya Gottumukkala; Thomas A Aloia Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Sami M Abujbarah; Kristen Jogerst; Heidi E Kosiorek; Sarwat Ahmad; Patricia A Cronin; William Casey; Ryan Craner; Alanna Rebecca; Barbara A Pockaj Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Josh Bleicher; Zachary Fender; Jordan E Johnson; Brian T Cain; Kathy Phan; Damien Powers; Guo Wei; Angela P Presson; Alvin Kwok; T Bartley Pickron; Courtney L Scaife; Lyen C Huang Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.125
Authors: Tracy-Ann Moo; Kate R Pawloski; Varadan Sevilimedu; Jillian Charyn; Brett A Simon; Lisa M Sclafani; George Plitas; Andrea V Barrio; Laurie J Kirstein; Kimberly J Van Zee; Monica Morrow Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jonas A Nelson; Thais O Polanco; Meghana G Shamsunder; Michelle Coriddi; Evan Matros; Madeleine E V Hicks; Joseph J Disa; Babak J Mehrara; Robert J Allen; Joseph H Dayan; Anoushka Afonso Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 4.339
Authors: Bradley R Hall; Katherine L Billue; Heidi Hon; Stacey E Sanders; Stephan Barrientos; Laura E Flores; Thomas Nicholas; Valerie Shostrom; Bria Meyer; Perry J Johnson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2020-12-21
Authors: Gregory Glauser; Zarina S Ali; Diana Gardiner; Ashwin G Ramayya; Rachel Pessoa; M Sean Grady; William C Welch; Eric L Zager; Esther Sim; Virginia Haughey; Brian Wells; Michael Restuccia; Gordon Tait; Glenn Fala; Neil R Malhotra Journal: Mhealth Date: 2019-09-24