Search

BackgroundInfection remains a costly, devastating complication following the treatment of open fractures. The appropriate timing of debridement is controversial, and available evidence has been conflicting.MethodsThis study is a retrospective analysis of the SIGN (Surgical Implant Generation Network) Surgical Database (SSDB), a prospective registry of fracture cases in predominantly low-resource settings. Skeletally mature patients (≥16 years of age) who returned for follow-up at any time point after intramedullary nailing of an open femoral or tibial fracture were included. Patients were excluded if they had delays in debridement exceeding 7 days after the injury. Utilizing a model adjusting for potential confounders, including patient demographic characteristics, injury characteristics, country income level, and hospital type and resources, local logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the probability of infection with increasing time to debridement in 6-hour increments.ResultsIn this study, 27.3% of patients met the eligibility criteria and returned for follow-up, with a total of 10,651 fractures from 61 countries included. Overall, the probability of infection increased by 0.17% for every 6-hour delay in debridement. On subgroup analysis, the probability of infection increased by 0.23% every 6 hours for Gustilo-Anderson type-III injuries compared with 0.13% for Gustilo-Anderson type-I or II injuries. The infection risk increased every 6 hours by 0.18% for tibial fractures compared with 0.13% for femoral fractures.ConclusionsThere was a linear and cumulative increased risk of infection with delays in debridement for open femoral and tibial fractures. Such injuries should be debrided promptly and expeditiously. The size and international nature of this cohort make these findings uniquely generalizable to nearly all environments where such injuries are treated.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BackgroundInternational orthopaedic resident rotations in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are gaining popularity among high-income country (HIC) residency programs. While evidence demonstrates a benefit for the visiting residents, few studies have evaluated the impact of such rotations on the orthopaedic surgeons and trainees in LMICs. The purpose of this study was to further explore themes identified in a previous survey study regarding the local impact of visiting HIC resident rotations.MethodsUsing a semistructured interview guide, LMIC surgeons and trainees who had hosted HIC orthopaedic residents within the previous 10 years were interviewed until thematic saturation was reached.ResultsTwenty attending and resident orthopaedic surgeons from 8 LMICs were interviewed. Positive and negative effects of the visiting residents on clinical care, education, interpersonal relationships, and resource availability were identified. Seven recommendations for visiting resident rotations were highlighted, including a 1 to 2-month rotation length; visiting residents at the senior training level; site-specific prerotation orientation with an emphasis on resident attitudes, including the need for humility; creation of bidirectional opportunities; partnering with institutions with local training programs; and fostering mutually beneficial sustained relationships.ConclusionsThis study explores the perspectives of those who host visiting residents, a viewpoint that is underrepresented in the literature. Future research regarding HIC orthopaedic resident rotations in LMICs should include the perspectives of local surgeons and trainees to strive for mutually beneficial experiences to further strengthen and sustain such academic partnerships.

BackgroundOpen tibial fractures are common injuries in low and middle-income countries, but there is no consensus regarding treatment with intramedullary nailing versus external fixation. The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes of initial treatment with intramedullary nailing or external fixation in adults with open tibial fractures.MethodsWe conducted a randomized clinical trial (RCT) at a tertiary orthopaedic center in Tanzania. Adults with acute diaphyseal open tibial fractures were randomly assigned to statically locked, hand-reamed intramedullary nailing or uniplanar external fixation. The primary outcome was death or reoperation for the treatment of deep infection, nonunion, or malalignment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life as measured with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, radiographic alignment, and healing as measured with the modified Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (mRUST).ResultsOf the 240 patients who were enrolled, 221 (92.1%) (including 111 managed with intramedullary nailing and 110 managed with external fixation) completed 1-year follow-up. There were 44 primary outcome events (with rates of 18.0% and 21.9% in the intramedullary nailing and external fixation groups, respectively) (relative risk [RR] = 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49 to 1.41]; p = 0.505). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the rate of deep infection. Intramedullary nailing was associated with a lower risk of coronal malalignment (RR = 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.85]; p = 0.01) and sagittal malalignment (RR = 0.17 [95% CI, 0.02 to 1.35]; p = 0.065) at 1 year. The EQ-5D index favored intramedullary nailing at 6 weeks (mean difference [MD] = 0.07 [95% CI = 0.03 to 0.11]; p < 0.001), but this difference dissipated by 1 year. Radiographic healing (mRUST) favored intramedullary nailing at 6 weeks (MD = 1.2 [95% CI = 0.4 to 2.0]; p = 0.005), 12 weeks (MD = 1.0 [95% CI = 0.3 to 1.7]; p = 0.005), and 1 year (MD = 0.8 [95% CI = 0.2 to 1.5]; p = 0.013).ConclusionsTo our knowledge, the present study is the first RCT assessing intramedullary nailing versus external fixation for the treatment of open tibial fractures in sub-Saharan Africa. Differences in primary events were not detected, and only coronal alignment significantly favored the use of intramedullary nailing.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.