4.5 Review

Chronic Postoperative Opioid Use: A Systematic Review

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 43, Issue 9, Pages 2164-2174

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-019-05016-9

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThere are a number of studies in the literature that describe the prevalence, causes, and factors associated with chronic postoperative opioid use, but there is a lack of synthesis of the literature to guide clinicians in optimally managing postoperative pain while avoiding opioid dependence. Thus, the goal of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to investigate the prevalence of chronic postoperative opioid use and the associated risk factors.Materials and methodsA systematic search was performed using Ovid Medline and Embase according to PRISMA guidelines. Data were collected on the following outcomes of interest: prevalence of opioid use at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively, and risk factors associated with chronic postoperative opioid use.ResultsForty-three articles were included in the final analysis. The mean prevalence of chronic postoperative opioid use in all populations at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively was 30.5%, 25.6%, and 25.2%, respectively. The prevalence of patients who developed chronic opioid use at 3, 6, and 12months postoperatively was 10.4%, 8.5%, and 9.8%, respectively. Forty of the articles analyzed risk factors associated with chronic postoperative opioid use. The most common associated risk factor identified was preoperative opioid use with 27 articles demonstrating a significant association with chronic postoperative opioid use.DiscussionThe current opioid crisis is in part secondary to the prevalence of chronic opioid use following surgery. This study identified associated risk factors with chronic postoperative opioid use, which may help identify patients at risk for developing chronic postoperative opioid use.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available