ArticleNorth American Spine Society journal2026
Chronic opioid prescription rates following long-segment lumbar instrumentation: A comparison of academic and nonacademic centers.
Article in North American Spine Society journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Postoperative opioid prescribing after spine surgery varies widely, and institutional factors such as academic center status may influence long-term opioid use. Understanding these differences is important for improving opioid stewardship following complex lumbar procedures. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Research Network evaluated chronic postoperative opioid prescribing after long-segment posterior lumbar instrumentation. Patients undergoing posterior lumbar instrumentation spanning 3 to 12 vertebral segments between 2010 and 2022 were stratified by treatment at academic or nonacademic centers. Propensity score matching balanced cohorts for demographics, comorbidities, and preoperative analgesic use. Opioid prescriptions were assessed at 3 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 12 to 24 months postoperatively and categorized by metabolic class and strength. Logistic regression compared postoperative opioid prescribing between cohorts. Results: After propensity score matching, 7,883 patients were included in each cohort. At 3 to 6 months postoperatively, patients treated at nonacademic centers had lower odds of receiving opioids compared to those treated at academic centers, including lower odds of codeine-based opioids (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.71-0.82) and weak opioids (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.63-0.79). At 6 to 12 months, patients at nonacademic centers demonstrated higher odds of receiving non-codeine-based opioids (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31). At 12 to 24 months postoperatively, treatment at nonacademic centers was associated with higher odds of non-codeine-based opioids (OR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.17-1.36), strong opioids (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.08-1.25), and moderate opioids (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02-1.21). Conclusions: Postoperative opioid prescribing following long-segment lumbar instrumentation differs between academic and nonacademic centers and varies over time. These findings highlight institutional variation in long-term opioid prescribing and underscore the need for further studies to identify drivers of these differences and optimize postoperative pain management strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.