Continuation of Buprenorphine to FacilitatePostoperative Pain Management for Patients onBuprenorphine Opioid Agonist Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute pain management in patients on buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy (BOAT) can be challenging. It is unclear whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted for optimization of postoperative pain control. Objectives: To determine an evidence-based approach for pain management in patients on BOAT in the perioperative setting, particularly whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted with or without bridging to another mu opioid agonist and to identify benefits and harms of either perioperative strategy. Study Design: Systematic literature review with qualitative data synthesis. Setting: Hospital, perioperative. Methods: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (Registration number 9030276355). Medline via OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials were searched for prospective or retrospective observational or controlled studies, case series, and case reports that described perioperative or acute pain care for patients on BOAT. References of narrative and systematic reviews addressing acute pain management in patients on BOAT and references of included articles were hand-searched to identify additional original articles for inclusion. The full text of publications were reviewed for final inclusion, and data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. Results were summarized qualitatively. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and total opioid use and identification of benefits and harms of perioperative strategies. Results: Eighteen publications presenting data on the perioperative management of patients on BOAT were identified: 10 case reports, 5 case series, and 3 retrospective cohort studies. Eleven articles reported continuation of BOAT, 2 concerned bridging BOAT, and 4 articles described stopping BOAT without planned bridging. In one retrospective cohort study, BOAT was continued in half and interrupted in half of patients. Patients on BOAT may have pain that is more difficult to treat than those who are not on OAT. There is no clear evidence that one particular strategy provides superior postoperative pain control, but interruption of BOAT may result in harm, including failure to return to baseline BOAT doses, continuing non-BOAT opioid use, or relapse of opioid use disorder. Limitations: There were a limited number of articles relevant to the study question consisting of case reports and retrospective observational studies. Some omitted relevant details. No prospective studies were found. Conclusions: There is no clear benefit to bridging or stopping BOAT but failure to restart it may pose concerns for relapse. We recommend continuing BOAT in the perioperative period when possible and incorporating an interdisciplinary approach with multimodal analgesia. Key words: Opioid use disorder, opiate substitution treatment, buprenorphine, buprenorphinenaloxone, buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy, postoperative pain, acute pain, multimodal analgesia
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".