To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen For Pain & Quality Of Recovery After Ambulatory Spine Surgery

Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
July 2025

Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen For Pain & Quality Of Recovery After Ambulatory Spine Surgery

Vol: 307| Issue: 7| Number:75| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Intravenous versus oral acetaminophen for pain and quality of recovery after ambulatory spine surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Reg Anesth Pain Med . 2025 Jun 10;50(6):483-488.

Contributing Authors:
ES Schwenk P Ferd MC Torjman CJ Li AR Charlton VZ Yan MA McCurdy CK Kepler GD Schroeder AN Fleischman T Issa

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Eighty-two patients undergoing ambulatory lumbar spine surgery were randomized to receive either 1000 mg intravenous acetaminophen (n=42) or 1000 mg oral acetaminophen (n=40). The primary outcome of interest was 24-hour opioid consumption in intravenous morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain ratings, PACU opioid use, Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue