Search

Background: Despite evidence that formalized trauma systems enhance patient functional outcomes and decrease mortality rates, there remains a lack of such systems globally. Critical to trauma systems are the equipment, materials, and supplies needed to support care, which vary in availability regionally. The purpose of the present study was to identify essential resources for musculoskeletal trauma care across diverse resource settings worldwide., Methods: The modified Delphi method was utilized, with 3 rounds of electronic surveys. Respondents consisted of 1 surgeon with expertise in musculoskeletal trauma per country. Participants were identified with use of the AO Trauma, AO Alliance, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery networks. Respondents rated resources on a Likert scale from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). The "most essential" resources were classified as those rated ≤2 by ≥75% of the sampled group., Results: One hundred and three of 111 invited surgeons completed the first survey and were included throughout the subsequent rounds (representing a 93% response rate). Most participants were fellowship-trained (78%) trauma and orthopaedic surgeons (90%) practicing in an academic setting (62%), and 46% had >20 years of experience. Respondents represented low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs; 35%), upper-middle income countries (UMICs; 30%), and high-income countries (HICs; 35%). The initial survey identified 308 unique resources for pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of care, of which 71 resources achieved consensus as the most essential. There was a significant difference (p < 0.0167) in ratings between income groups for 16 resources, all of which were related to general trauma care rather than musculoskeletal injury management., Conclusions: There was agreement on a core list of essential musculoskeletal trauma care resources by respondents from LMICs, UMICs, and HICs. All significant differences in resource ratings were related to general trauma management. This study represents a first step toward establishing international consensus and underscores the need to prioritize resources that are locally available. The information can be used to develop effective guidelines and policies, create best-practice treatment standards, and advocate for necessary resources worldwide., Clinical Relevance: This study utilized the Delphi method representing expert opinion; however, this work did not examine patient management and therefore does not have a clinical Level of Evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H696 )., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infection remains a costly, devastating complication following the treatment of open fractures. The appropriate timing of debridement is controversial, and available evidence has been conflicting., Methods: This 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., Results: In 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., Conclusions: There 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 Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H654 )., (Copyright © 2023 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there are often not enough orthopaedic surgeons to treat musculoskeletal conditions. International volunteerism is 1 way that the orthopaedic community seeks to meet this need. This study explored the opportunities available for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer overseas as offered by nonprofit organizations in the United States and Canada., Methods: A systematic internet search was conducted using 2 distinct search strategies. A website was considered a "hit" if it was that of a U.S. or Canada-based nonprofit, volunteer, or non-governmental organization that had opportunities for international orthopaedic volunteerism. Duplicate hits were eliminated to identify distinct organizations. Data regarding the work and geographical reach of the organization, as well as changes to its volunteer programs as a result of COVID-19, were extracted from each hit., Results: Of the 38 distinct organizations identified in the U.S. and Canada, the most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were pediatrics (37%), hand (24%), and arthroplasty (18%). Foot and ankle (4 organizations; 11%), sports medicine (2 organizations; 5%), and oncology (1 organization; 3%) were the least represented subspecialities. The most common regions for volunteer trips included Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by West and East Africa. Twelve organizations (32%) were identified as having a religious affiliation. For most organizations, the trip duration was a minimum of 1 week. All volunteer organizations included operative or clinical experiences as part of their trips, and the majority of organizations (58%) reported that their trips included opportunities for training local surgeons. Many organizations (71%) reported having resumed trips after halting them during the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusions: Many opportunities exist for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer their time and skills abroad. Future directions for the improvement of international volunteer efforts among the orthopaedic community could include expanding the number of existing volunteer opportunities and assessing the ethics, safety, efficacy, and longevity of these programs., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H314 )., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: While surgeons in low and middle-income countries have increasing experience with intramedullary nailing (IMN), external fixation (EF) continues to be commonly used for the management of open tibial fractures. We examined outcomes with extended follow-up of the participants enrolled in a clinical trial comparing these treatments., Methods: Adults who were ≥18 years old with acute AO/OTA type-42 open tibial shaft fractures were randomly assigned to statically locked, hand-reamed IMN or uniplanar EF. These participants were reevaluated 3 to 5 years after treatment. The primary outcome was death or reoperation for the treatment of deep infection, nonunion, or malalignment. Unresolved complications such as persistent fracture-related infection, nonunion, or malalignment were collected and analyzed. Secondary outcomes included the EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, the Function IndeX for Trauma (FIX-IT) score, radiographic alignment, and the modified Radiographic Union Scale for Tibial fractures (mRUST)., Results: Of the originally enrolled 240 participants,126 (67 managed with IMN and 59 managed with EF) died or returned for follow-up at a mean of 4.0 years (range, 2.9 to 5.2 years). Thirty-two composite primary events occurred, with rates of 23.9% and 27.1% in the IMN and EF groups, respectively. Six of these events (3 in the IMN group and 3 in the EF group) were newly detected after the original 1-year follow-up. Unresolved complications in the form of chronic fracture-related infection or nonunion were present at long-term follow-up in 25% of the participants who sustained a primary event. The EQ-5D-3L index scores were similar between the 2 groups and only returned to preinjury levels after 1 year among patients without complications or those whose complications resolved., Conclusions: This observational study extended follow-up for a clinical trial assessing IMN versus EF for the treatment of open tibial fractures in sub-Saharan Africa. At a mean of 4 years after injury, fracture-related infection and nonunion became chronic conditions in nearly a quarter of the participants who experienced these complications, regardless of reintervention., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H177 )., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: International 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., Methods: Using 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., Results: Twenty 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., Conclusions: This 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., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H127 )., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Abstract: Globally, the burden of musculoskeletal conditions continues to rise, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ability to meet these orthopaedic surgical care demands remains a challenge. To help address these issues, many orthopaedic surgeons seek opportunities to provide humanitarian assistance to the populations in need. While many global orthopaedic initiatives are well-intentioned and can offer short-term benefits to the local communities, it is essential to emphasize training and the integration of local surgeon-leaders. The commitment to developing educational and investigative capacity, as well as fostering sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships in low-resource settings, is critical. To this end, global health organizations, such as the Consortium of Orthopaedic Academic Traumatologists (COACT), work to promote and ensure the lasting sustainability of musculoskeletal trauma care worldwide. This article describes global orthopaedic efforts that can effectively address musculoskeletal care through an examination of 5 domains: clinical care, clinical research, surgical education, disaster response, and advocacy., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G840)., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)

Background: Open fractures, especially of the tibia, require prompt intervention to achieve optimal patient outcomes. While open tibial shaft fractures are common injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a dearth of literature examining delays to surgery for these injuries in low-resource settings. This study investigated risk factors for delayed management of open tibial fractures in Tanzania., Methods: We conducted an ad hoc analysis of adult patients enrolled in a prospective observational study at a tertiary referral center in Tanzania from 2015 to 2017. Multivariable models were utilized to analyze risk factors for delayed hospital presentation of ≥2 hours, median time from injury to the treatment hospital, and delayed surgical treatment of ≥12 hours after admission among patients with diaphyseal open tibial fractures., Results: Two hundred and forty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. Only 12% of patients used an ambulance, 41% were delayed ≥2 hours in presentation to the first hospital, 75% received an interfacility referral, and 10% experienced a delay to surgery of ≥12 hours after admission. After adjusting for injury severity, having insurance (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.24 to 0.96) and wounds with approximated skin edges (aOR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.66) were associated with a decreased risk of delayed hospital presentation. Interfacility referrals (2.3 hours greater than no referral; p = 0.015) and rural injury location (10.9 hours greater than urban location; p < 0.001) were associated with greater median times to treatment hospital admission. Older age (aOR = 0.54 per 10 years; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.95), single-person households (aOR = 0.12 compared with ≥8 people; 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.96), and an education level greater than pre-primary (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.62) were associated with fewer delays to surgery of ≥12 hours after admission., Conclusions: Prehospital network and socioeconomic characteristics are associated with delays to open tibial fracture care in Tanzania. Reducing interfacility referrals and implementing surgical cost-reduction strategies may help to reduce delays to open fracture care in LMICs., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G914)., (Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Despite a substantial burden of musculoskeletal injury, orthopaedic trauma studies in Latin America are lacking. The purpose of the present study was to identify research priorities among orthopaedic trauma surgeons in Latin America., Methods: Research questions were solicited from members of the Asociación de Cirujanos Traumatólogos de las Américas. Participants rated questions by importance from 1 to 9. All questions were redistributed with an aggregate rating, and participants rerated questions with knowledge of group responses., Results: Seventy-eight participants completed the first survey and were included in subsequent surveys. The mean age was 51.8 years, and most participants were male (92%), had completed an orthopaedic trauma fellowship (60.3%), and participated in research (80.8%). Seventeen countries were represented; 5 respondents were from a high-income country, 67 were from an upper middle-income country, and 6 were from a lower middle-income country. Sixty-five questions were identified. Six questions were rated from 1 to 3 ("more important") by >70% of participants: (1) What is the optimal treatment protocol for elderly patients with hip fracture? (2) What is the most effective initial and definitive management of musculoskeletal injury, including timing and surgical strategy, for the polytraumatized patient? (3) What is the ideal state of open fracture treatment, including timeliness and method of antibiotics, debridement, surgical fixation, and closure or coverage, at each hospital level in the health-care system? (4) What patient and fracture characteristics predict infection after musculoskeletal injury? (5) What is the current state of treatment for fracture-related infection, including timeliness and method of antibiotics and surgical intervention, at each hospital level in the health-care system? (6) What is the optimal protocol for temporary management for the hemodynamically unstable patient with a pelvic or acetabular fracture?, Conclusions: This modified Delphi study of orthopaedic trauma surgeons in Latin America identified geriatric hip fractures, polytrauma, open fractures, musculoskeletal infection, and pelvic and acetabular fractures as top research priorities. This information is important for resource allocation and goal setting for orthopaedic trauma in the region., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G720)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Open tibial shaft fractures are an important source of disability in Latin America. High-income countries (HICs) worldwide have established standardized treatment protocols for open tibial fractures, but less is known about their treatment in middle-income countries (MICs) in Latin America. This survey of Latin American orthopaedic surgeons characterizes open tibial fracture treatment patterns., Methods: Orthopaedic surgeons from 20 national orthopaedic societies throughout Latin America completed an online survey assessing their treatment of open tibial fractures. Demographic information was collected. Treatment patterns were queried according to 2 groupings of Gustilo-Anderson (GA) fracture types: treatment of type-I and type-II fractures (GA-I/II) and treatment of type-III fractures (GA-III). Treatment patterns were evaluated across 4 domains: antibiotic prophylaxis, irrigation and debridement, fracture stabilization, and wound management. Summary statistics were reported; analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test (p < 0.05)., Results: There were 616 survey participants from 20 Latin American countries (4 HICs and 16 MICs). Initial external fixation followed by staged internal fixation was preferred for GA-I/II (51.0%) and GA-III fractures (86.0%). Nearly one-third (31.5%) of GA-IIIB fractures did not receive a soft-tissue coverage procedure. Stratifying by country socioeconomic status, surgeons in MICs more commonly utilized delayed internal fixation for GA-I/II (53.3% versus 22.0%, p < 0.001) and GA-III fractures (94.0% versus 80.4%, p = 0.002). Surgeons in MICs more commonly used primary closure for GA-I/II (88.9% versus 62.8%, p < 0.001) and GA-III fractures (32.6% versus 9.8%, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: This survey reports Latin American orthopaedic surgeons' treatment patterns for open tibial shaft fractures. Surgeons in MICs reported higher delayed internal fixation use for all fracture types, while surgeons in HICs more routinely avoid primary closure. Soft-tissue coverage procedures are not performed in nearly one-third of GA-IIIB fractures because of a lack of operative personnel and training.

Background: Open 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., Methods: We 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)., Results: Of 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)., Conclusions: To 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 Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: There are few validated instruments that serve as a proxy for fracture-healing after lower-extremity trauma in low-resource settings. The squat-and-smile test (S&S) has been under development by SIGN (Surgical Implant Generation Network) Fracture Care International to monitor outcomes of lower-extremity long-bone fractures after intramedullary nailing in resource-limited settings. The goals of this study were to develop and identify domains of the S&S test., Methods: The S&S domains were developed through an iterative process, and consensus was achieved regarding 3: squat depth, support needed to squat, and facial expression. Adult patients with an OTA/AO type-32 femoral shaft fracture were included in this retrospective study and had the S&S administered at 6 weeks and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Two authors independently assessed photographs of the patients performing the S&S. S&S domains were correlated with the EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) index score, and comparisons were made between S&S domains and reoperation status. Interrater and test-retest reliability was assessed using the kappa statistic. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed., Results: Six hundred and nine S&S images were evaluated for 231 patients. Each domain improved over time and correlated positively with EQ-5D scores (p < 0.05). Squat depth and support needed to squat correlated with the need for a reoperation (p ≤ 0.01), and both had high specificity (0.95 and 0.97, respectively) for ruling out the need for a reoperation at 1 year. All 3 domains had high test-retest reliability (κ = 0.95, 0.92, and 0.96). Squat depth and need for support also had strong interrater reliability (κ = 0.75 and 0.78)., Conclusions: The S&S is a potential tool for monitoring clinical and functional outcome of femoral shaft fractures in low-resource settings. Our data support the binary assessment of squat depth and need for support, but not facial expression, as a proxy for fracture-healing. Future prospective studies in external populations are warranted to evaluate the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the S&S., Clinical Relevance: The S&S provides a valuable proxy for femoral shaft fracture assessment for middle to low-income countries because it is locally relevant (based on squatting), it is easy to administer, and assessment can be performed remotely via mobile telephone or text messaging.

Background: The optimal treatment for femoral shaft fractures in low-resource settings has yet to be established, in part, because of a lack of data supporting operative treatment modalities. We aimed to determine the reoperation rate among femoral fractures managed operatively and to identify risk factors for reoperation at a hospital in a Sub-Saharan country., Methods: We conducted a prospective clinical study at a single tertiary care center in Tanzania, enrolling all skeletally mature patients with diaphyseal femoral fractures managed operatively from July 2012 to July 2013. Patients were followed at regular intervals for 1 year postoperatively. The primary outcome was a complication requiring reoperation for any reason. Secondary outcomes were scores on the EuroQol (EQ)-5D, radiographic union score for tibial fractures (RUST), and squat-and-smile test., Results: There were a total of 331 femoral fractures (329 patients) enrolled in the study, with a follow-up rate at 1 year of 82.2% (272 of 331). Among the patients with complete follow-up, 4 injuries were managed with plate fixation and 268 were managed with use of an intramedullary nail. The reoperation rate for plate fixation was 25% (1 of 4) compared with 5.2% (14 of 268) for intramedullary nailing (p = 0.204). As found in a multivariate logistic regression, a small nail diameter, a Winquist type-3 fracture pattern, and varus malalignment of proximal fractures were associated with reoperation. The mean EQ-5D score at 1 year was 0.95 for patients who did not require reoperation compared with 0.83 for patients who required reoperation (p = 0.0002)., Conclusions: Intramedullary nailing for femoral shaft fractures was associated with low risk of reoperation and a nearly full return to baseline health-related quality of life at 1 year of follow-up. There are potentially modifiable risk factors for reoperation that can be identified and addressed through education and dissemination of these findings., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.