Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study reveals opportunities for improved opioid prescribing in children’s surgery, indicating potential for enhanced safety.
BACKGROUND: Pediatric postoperative opioid prescribing remains a modifiable source of harm, but procedure-specific national prescribing patterns, inter-hospital variability, and high-yield stewardship targets are not well defined. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used January-December 2023 data from NSQIP-Ped and PHIS for non-neonate children aged 0-17 years undergoing surgery. Procedure groups were defined by CPT code. Outcomes were Opioid Prescription Proportion (OPP), Prescribing Practice Variability (PPV; interquartile range of hospital-level OPP), and Contribution to Total Opioid Prescriptions (CTOP). PHIS volumes from 45 hospitals also participating in NSQIP-Ped were used to estimate procedure-group case volumes and CTOP. RESULTS: Among 142,748 NSQIP-Ped cases from 157 hospitals, 31% (44,110/142,748) had an opioid prescription at discharge. After PHIS case-volume adjustment, this corresponded to 27% (38,102/142,748) of cases. The top 20 procedure groups accounted for 95% (36,241/38,102) of estimated opioid prescriptions at discharge. Highest OPPs were observed for chest wall procedures at 82% (1,839/2,242), lower extremity procedures at 78% (5,949/7,658), and spine procedures at 77% (7,724/10,047). Highest PPV was observed for craniofacial procedures (IQR 0.7), cleft lip-palate procedures (IQR 0.6), and fracture repair (IQR 0.6). Highest CTOPs were fracture repair at 16% (5,904/38,102), spine procedures at 13% (5,032/38,102), and lower extremity procedures at 13% (4,913/38,102). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric postoperative opioid prescribing is concentrated within a limited number of procedure groups, with substantial variation across hospitals for selected procedures. These data identify procedure-specific opportunities for opioid stewardship initiatives in children's surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moturu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: