The role of preoperative opioid use in shoulder surgery—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests preoperative opioid use may increase the risk of negative outcomes following orthopedic procedures. This systematic review evaluated the impact of preoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgery with respect to preoperative clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and postoperative dependence on opioids.MethodsEMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to April, 2021 for studies reporting preoperative opioid use and its effect on postoperative outcomes or opioid use. The search, data extraction and methodologic assessment were performed in duplicate for all included studies.ResultsTwenty-one studies with a total of 257,301 patients were included in the final synthesis. Of which, 17 were level III evidence. Of those, 51.5% of the patients reported pre-operative opioid use. Fourteen studies (66.7%) reported a higher likelihood of opioid use at follow-up among those used opioids preoperatively compared to preoperative opioid-naïve patients. Eight studies (38.1%) showed lower functional measurements and range of motion in opioid group compared to the non-opioid group post-operatively.ConclusionPreoperative opioid use in patients undergoing shoulder surgeries is associated with lower functional scores and post-operative range of motion. Most concerning is preoperative opioid use may predict increased post-operative opioid requirements and potential for misuse in patients.Level of evidenceLevel IV, Systematic review.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".