Chronic Gabapentinoid Use and Lumbar Fusion Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Gabapentinoids Alone and in Combination With Opioids.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-05-15 Epub Date: 2024-11-20 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005221
Riza M Cetik, Steven D Glassman, Colleen Mahoney, Jeffrey L Gum, Charles H Crawford, Roger K Owens, John R Dimar, Benjamin Kostic, Leah Y Carreon
{"title":"Chronic Gabapentinoid Use and Lumbar Fusion Outcomes: A Comparative Analysis of Gabapentinoids Alone and in Combination With Opioids.","authors":"Riza M Cetik, Steven D Glassman, Colleen Mahoney, Jeffrey L Gum, Charles H Crawford, Roger K Owens, John R Dimar, Benjamin Kostic, Leah Y Carreon","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective comparative cohort study.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To examine the effects of chronic use of gabapentinoids (GPs) (alone or with opioids) on the outcomes of lumbar fusions.</p><p><strong>Summary of background data: </strong>Opioids have historically been the mainstay medications for pain management, but the ongoing opioid epidemic led physicians to look for alternatives. GPs are used for various indications, and chronic use for any indication may lead to a higher risk of adverse events, especially when combined with opioids.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent posterior fusion of the lumbosacral spine and ≥1-year follow-up were included. Patients were grouped according to their preoperative chronic GP and opioid usage as GP and opioid nonuser (-/-), GP user opioid nonuser (+/-), GP nonuser and opioid user (-/+), and GP and opioid user (+/+).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 563 patients (M/F%=41/59, mean age 61.1 y) were included. Two hundred eighty (49%) patients were in the group -/-, while 110 (19%) were in +/-, 78 (15%) were in -/+, and 95 (17%) were in +/+. For ODI, back pain and leg pain, +/+ had the worst outcomes at all time points, while -/- had the best. Chronic GP users (+/-) showed back pain improvement similar to the -/- group; however, the improvements in leg pain and ODI were considerably less. GP use resulted in increased postoperative opioid requirements, although not as much as chronic opioid use. Complication rates were similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chronic preoperative use of GPs may lead to inferior outcomes when compared with GP-naive patients, and this is significantly accentuated when taken concurrently with opioids. Patients who are using both GPs and opioids had the worst results for almost every outcome measure. Given the significantly worse surgical outcomes documented in this study, concurrent use with opioids should be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":"50 10","pages":"672-678"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005221","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective comparative cohort study.

Objectives: To examine the effects of chronic use of gabapentinoids (GPs) (alone or with opioids) on the outcomes of lumbar fusions.

Summary of background data: Opioids have historically been the mainstay medications for pain management, but the ongoing opioid epidemic led physicians to look for alternatives. GPs are used for various indications, and chronic use for any indication may lead to a higher risk of adverse events, especially when combined with opioids.

Materials and methods: Patients aged 18 years and older who underwent posterior fusion of the lumbosacral spine and ≥1-year follow-up were included. Patients were grouped according to their preoperative chronic GP and opioid usage as GP and opioid nonuser (-/-), GP user opioid nonuser (+/-), GP nonuser and opioid user (-/+), and GP and opioid user (+/+).

Results: A total of 563 patients (M/F%=41/59, mean age 61.1 y) were included. Two hundred eighty (49%) patients were in the group -/-, while 110 (19%) were in +/-, 78 (15%) were in -/+, and 95 (17%) were in +/+. For ODI, back pain and leg pain, +/+ had the worst outcomes at all time points, while -/- had the best. Chronic GP users (+/-) showed back pain improvement similar to the -/- group; however, the improvements in leg pain and ODI were considerably less. GP use resulted in increased postoperative opioid requirements, although not as much as chronic opioid use. Complication rates were similar.

Conclusions: Chronic preoperative use of GPs may lead to inferior outcomes when compared with GP-naive patients, and this is significantly accentuated when taken concurrently with opioids. Patients who are using both GPs and opioids had the worst results for almost every outcome measure. Given the significantly worse surgical outcomes documented in this study, concurrent use with opioids should be avoided.

慢性加巴喷丁类药物使用和腰椎融合结果:加巴喷丁类药物单独使用和与阿片类药物联合使用的比较分析。
研究设计:回顾性比较队列研究。目的:研究长期使用加巴喷丁类药物(单独使用或与阿片类药物联合使用)对腰椎融合预后的影响。背景资料摘要:阿片类药物历来是疼痛管理的主要药物,但持续的阿片类药物流行导致医生寻找替代品。全科医生用于各种适应症,长期使用任何适应症都可能导致更高的不良事件风险,特别是与阿片类药物联合使用时。材料和方法:纳入年龄在18岁及以上,行腰骶椎后路融合术且随访≥1年的患者。患者根据术前慢性全科医生和阿片类药物使用情况分为全科医生和阿片类药物非使用者(-/-)、全科医生非阿片类药物使用者(+/-)、全科医生非使用者和阿片类药物使用者(-/+)和全科医生和阿片类药物使用者(+/+)。结果:共纳入563例患者(M/F%=41/59,平均年龄61.1岁)。-/-组280例(49%),+/-组110例(19%),-/+组78例(15%),+/+组95例(17%)。对于ODI,背部疼痛和腿部疼痛,+/+在所有时间点的结果最差,而-/-的结果最好。慢性全科医生使用者(+/-)的背痛改善与-/-组相似;然而,腿部疼痛和ODI的改善要少得多。全科医生的使用导致术后阿片类药物需求增加,尽管没有慢性阿片类药物使用多。并发症发生率相似。结论:与未使用gp的患者相比,术前长期使用gp可能导致较差的结果,并且当与阿片类药物同时使用时,这种情况明显加剧。同时使用全科医生和阿片类药物的患者几乎在所有结果测量中都有最差的结果。鉴于本研究中记录的明显较差的手术结果,应避免与阿片类药物同时使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信