Search

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the diagnostic performance of perfusion pressure (PP) thresholds for fasciotomy. DESIGN Prospective observational study. SETTING Seven Level-1 trauma centers. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS One hundred fifty adults with severe leg injuries and ≥2 hours of continuous PP data who had been enrolled in a multicenter observational trial designed to develop a clinical prediction rule for acute compartment syndrome (ACS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS For each patient, a given PP criterion was positive if it was below the specified threshold for at least 2 consecutive hours. The diagnostic performance of PP thresholds between 10 and 30 mm Hg was determined using 2 reference standards for comparison: (1) the likelihood of ACS as determined by an expert panel who reviewed each patient's data portfolio or (2) whether the patient underwent fasciotomy. RESULTS Using the likelihood of ACS as the diagnostic standard (ACS considered present if median likelihood ≥70%, absent if

Severe lower extremity trauma among working-age adults is highly consequential for returning to work; however, the economic impact attributed to injury has not been fully quantified. The purpose of this study was to examine work and productivity loss during the year following lower extremity trauma and to calculate the economic losses associated with lost employment, lost work time (absenteeism), and productivity loss while at work (presenteeism).This is an analysis of data collected prospectively across 3 multicenter studies of lower extremity trauma outcomes in the United States. Data were used to construct a Markov model that accumulated hours lost over time due to lost employment, absenteeism, and presenteeism among patients from 18 to 64 years old who were working prior to their injury. Average U.S. wages were used to calculate economic loss overall and by sociodemographic and injury subgroups.Of 857 patients working prior to injury, 47.2% had returned to work at 1 year. The average number of productive hours of work lost was 1,758.8/person, representing 84.6% of expected annual productive hours. Of the hours lost, 1,542.3 (87.7%) were due to working no hours or lost employment, 71.1 (4.0%) were due to missed hours after having returned, and 145.4 (8.3%) were due to decreased productivity while working. The 1-year economic loss due to injury totaled $64,427/patient (95% confidence interval [CI], $63,183 to $65,680). Of the 1,758.8 lost hours, approximately 88% were due to not being employed (working zero hours), 4% were due to absenteeism, and 8% were due to presenteeism. Total productivity loss was higher among older adults (≥40 years), men, those with a physically demanding job, and the most severe injuries (i.e., those leading to amputation as well as Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures and type-III pilon/ankle fractures).Patients with severe lower extremity trauma carry a substantial economic burden. The costs of lost productivity should be considered when evaluating outcomes.

To compare outcomes in patients with open tibia shaft fractures based on defect size.Retrospective review.Eighteen trauma centers.The study included 132 patients with diaphyseal tibia bone defects1 cm and ≥50% cortical loss treated with intramedullary nail.The primary outcome was number of secondary surgeries to promote healing (bone graft, revision fixation, or bone transport). Additional outcomes included occurrence of secondary surgeries (bone graft, infection, amputation, and flap failure) and proportion healed at one year. Results are compared by "radiographic apparent bone gap" of2.5 or ≥2.5 cm.The estimated conditional probability of bone grafting within one year given graft-free at 90 days was 44% and 47% in the2.5 cm and ≥2.5 cm groups, respectively. An estimated infection risk of 14% was observed in both groups [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-2.92], estimated amputation risk was 9% (2.5 cm) and 4% (≥2.5 cm) (unadjusted HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.13-3.29), and estimated flap failure risk (among those with flaps) was 10% and 13%, respectively (unadjusted HR 1.71, 95% CI: 0.24-12.25). There was no appreciable difference in the proportion healed at one year between defect sizes [adjusted HR: 1.07 (95% CI, 0.63-1.82)].Larger size bone defects were not associated with higher number of secondary procedures to promote healing or a lower overall one-year healing rate.Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Limited data are available on the longer-term physical and psychosocial consequences after major extremity trauma apart from literature on the consequences after major limb amputation. The existing literature suggests that although variations in outcome exist, a significant proportion of service members and civilians sustaining major limb trauma will have less than optimal outcomes or health and rehabilitation needs over their life course. The proposed pilot study will address this gap in current research by locating and consenting METRC participants with the period of 5-7 years postinjury, identifying potential participation barriers and appropriate use of incentives, and conducting the follow-up examination at several data collection sites. The resulting data will inform the primary objective of refining and developing specific hypotheses to determine the design, scope, and feasibility of the main long-term consequences of major extremity trauma. Three METRC enrollment centers will contact past participants to achieve the goal of completing an interview, select patient-reported outcomes, perform a medical record review, and conduct an in-person clinic visit that will consist of a physical examination, blood draw, and x-ray of the study injury area. If successful, it will be possible to design studies to further examine these effects and develop future therapeutic interventions.

In current clinical practice, weight-bearing is typically restricted for up to 12 weeks after definitive fixation of lower extremity periarticular fractures. However, muscle atrophy resulting from restricting weight-bearing has a deleterious effect on bone healing and overall limb function. Antigravity treadmill therapy may improve recovery by allowing patients to safely load the limb during therapy, thereby reducing the negative consequences of prolonged non-weight-bearing while avoiding complications associated with premature return to full weight-bearing. This article describes a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes after a 10-week antigravity treadmill therapy program versus standard of care in adult patients with periarticular fractures of the knee and distal tibia. The primary hypothesis is that, compared with patients receiving standard of care, patients receiving antigravity treadmill therapy will report better function 6 months after definitive treatment.

Severe upper-extremity injuries account for almost one-half of all extremity trauma in recent conflicts in the Global War on Terror. Few long-term outcomes studies address severe combat-related upper-extremity injuries. This study’s objective was to describe long-term functional outcomes of amputation compared with those of limb salvage in Global War on Terror veterans who sustained severe upper-extremity injuries. Limb salvage was hypothesized to result in better arm and hand function scores, overall functional status, and quality of life, with similar pain interference. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized data from the Military Extremity Trauma Amputation/Limb Salvage (METALS) study for a subset of 155 individuals who sustained major upper-extremity injuries treated with amputation or limb salvage. Participants were interviewed by telephone 40 months after injury, assessing social support, personal habits, and patient-reported outcome instruments for function, activity, depression, pain, and posttraumatic stress. Outcomes were evaluated for participants with severe upper-extremity injuries and were compared with participants with concomitant severe, lower-extremity injury. The analysis of outcomes comparing limb salvage with amputation was restricted to the 137 participants with a unilateral upper-extremity injury because of the small number of patients with bilateral upper-extremity injuries (n = 18). RESULTS: Overall, participants with upper-extremity injuries reported moderate to high levels of physical and psychosocial disability. Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) scores were high across domains; 19.4% screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and 12.3% were positive for depression. Nonetheless, 63.6% of participants were working, were on active duty, or were attending school, and 38.7% of participants were involved in vigorous recreational activities. No significant differences in outcomes were observed between patients who underwent limb salvage and those who underwent amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Severe, combat-related upper-extremity injuries result in diminished self-reported function and psychosocial health. Our results suggest that long-term outcomes are equivalent for those treated with amputation or limb salvage. Addressing or preventing PTSD, depression, chronic pain, and associated health habits may result in less disability burden in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate inter-rater reliability of the modified Radiographic Union Score for Tibial (mRUST) fractures among patients with open, diaphyseal tibia fractures with a bone defect treated with intramedullary nails (IMNs), plates, or definitive external fixation (ex-fix). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 15 level one civilian trauma centers; 2 military treatment facilities. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients ≥18-years-old with open, diaphyseal tibia fractures with a bone defect ≥1 centimeter surgically treated between 2007 and 2012. INTERVENTION: Three of six orthopaedic traumatologists reviewed and applied mRUST scoring criteria to radiographs from the last clinical visit within 13 months of injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Krippendorff’s Alpha (KA) statistic; Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is presented for comparison to previous publications. RESULTS: 213 patients met inclusion criteria including 115 IMNs, 24 plates, 29 ex-fixes, and 45 cases that no longer had instrumentation at evaluation. All reviewers agreed on the pattern of scoreable cortices for 90.4% of IMNs, 88.9% of those without instrumentation, 44.8% of rings, and 20.8% of plates. Thirty-one (15%) cases, primarily plates and ex-fixes, did not contribute to KA and ICC estimates because

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of severe lower extremity trauma on meeting Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAGA) 18 months after injury and perform an exploratory analysis to identify demographic, clinical, and psychosocial factors associated with meeting PAGA. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of observational cohort study. SETTING: A total of 34 United States trauma centers PARTICIPANTS: A total of 328 adults with severe distal tibia, ankle and mid- to hindfoot injuries treated with limb reconstruction (N=328). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The Paffenbarger Physical Activity Questionnaire was used to assess physical activity levels 18 months after injury. Meeting PAGA was defined as combined moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity ≥150 minutes per week or vigorous-intensity activity ≥75 minutes per week. RESULTS: Fewer patients engaged in moderate- or vigorous-intensity activity after injury compared with before injury (moderate: 44% vs 66%, P

OBJECTIVES Assess the burden and co-occurrence of pain, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among service members who sustained a major limb injury, and examine whether these conditions are associated with functional outcomes. DESIGN A retrospective cohort study. SETTING Four U.S. military treatment facilities: Walter Reed Army Medical Center, National Naval Medical Center, Brooke Army Medical Center, and Naval Medical Center San Diego. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS Four hundred twenty-nine United States service members who sustained a major limb injury while serving in Afghanistan or Iraq met eligibility criteria upon review of their medical records. INTERVENTION Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Outcomes assessed were: function using the short musculoskeletal functional assessment; PTSD using the PTSD Checklist and diagnostic and statistical manual criteria; pain using the chronic pain grade scale. RESULTS Military extremity trauma and amputation/limb salvage patients without pain, depression, or PTSD, were, on average, about one minimally clinically important difference (MCID) from age- and gender-adjusted population norms. In contrast, patients with low levels of pain and no depression or PTSD were, on average, one to 2 MCIDs from population norms. Military extremity trauma and amputation/limb salvage patients with either greater levels of pain, and who experience PTSD, depression, or both, were 4 to 6 MCIDs from population norms. Regression analyses adjusting for injury type (upper or lower limb, salvage or amputation, and unilateral or bilateral), age, time to interview, military rank, presence of a major upper limb injury, social support, presence of mild traumatic brain injury/concussion, and combat experiences showed that higher levels of pain, depression, and PTSD were associated with lower one-year functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Major limb trauma sustained in the military results in significant long-term pain and PTSD. Overall, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that pain, depression, and PTSD are associated with disability in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) is a custom energy-storing carbon fiber ankle-foot orthosis developed for lower-extremity trauma patients. Studies conducted at the military treatment facility where the IDEO was developed demonstrated benefits of the IDEO when used with the Return to Run Physical Therapy (RTR PT) program. The current study was designed to determine if results could be replicated at other military treatment facilities and to examine whether early performance gains in patient-reported functional outcomes remained at 12 months. Methods Study participants included service members who had functional deficits that interfered with daily activities at least 1 year after a traumatic unilateral lower-extremity injury at or below the knee. Participants were evaluated before receiving the IDEO, immediately following completion of RTR PT, and at 6 and 12 months. Agility, strength/power, and speed were assessed using well-established performance tests. Self-reported function was measured using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). The Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey was administered to assess satisfaction with the IDEO. Of 87 participants with complete baseline data, 6 did not complete any physical therapy and were excluded from the analysis. Follow-up rates immediately following completion of the RTR PT and at 6 and 12 months were 88%, 75%, and 79%, respectively. Results Compared with baseline, improvement at completion of RTR PT was observed in all but 1 performance test. SMFA scores for all domains except hand and arm function were lower (improved function) at 6 and 12 months. Satisfaction with the IDEO was high following completion of RTR PT, with some attenuation at the time of follow-up. Conclusions This study adds to the evidence supporting the efficacy of the IDEO coupled with RTR PT. However, despite improvement in both performance and self-reported functioning, deficits persist compared with population norms. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

We recorded measurements of muscle perfusion using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and intramuscular pressure (IMP) in a study designed to develop a decision rule for predicting acute compartment syndrome (ACS). The purpose of this study was to report our experience measuring NIRS data in the context of this broader investigation and to explore factors related to variations in data capture.One hundred and eighty-five patients with lower-leg injuries had data consisting of continuous NIRS measurement of the O2 saturation in the anterior compartment of the injured limb and the contralateral (control) limb, and continuous IMP recording in the anterior and deep posterior compartments of the injured leg as part of their participation in an institutional review board-approved multicenter trial. All monitoring was done for a prescribed period of time. For both types of data, the percentage of valid data capture was defined as the ratio of the minutes of observed data points within a physiological range to the total minutes of expected data points. Clinically useful NIRS data required simultaneous data from the injured and control limbs to calculate the ratio. Statistical tests were used to compare the 2 methods as well as factors associated with the percent of valid NIRS data capture.For the original cohort, clinically useful NIRS data were available a median of 9.1% of the expected time, while IMP data were captured a median of 87.6% of the expected time (p0.001). Excluding 46 patients who had erroneous NIRS data recorded, the median percentage was 31.6% for NIRS compared with 87.4% for IMP data (p0.00001). Fractures with an associated hematoma were less likely to have valid data points (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; p = 0.04). Gustilo types-I and II open fractures were more likely than Tscherne grades C0 and C1 closed fractures to have valid data points (OR, 1.97; p = 0.03).In this study, NIRS data were not collected reliably. In contrast, IMP measurements were collected during85% of the expected monitoring period. These data raise questions about the utility of current NIRS data capture technology for monitoring oxygenation in patients at risk of ACS.

The impact of the Trauma Collaborative Care (TCC) program on surgeon confidence in managing the psychosocial sequelae of orthopaedic trauma was evaluated as part of a larger prospective, multisite, cluster clinical trial. We compared confidence and perceived resource availability among surgeons practicing in trauma centers that implemented the TCC program with orthopaedic trauma surgeons in similar trauma centers that did not implement the TCC.Prospective cohort design.Level-I trauma centers.Attending surgeons and fellows (N = 95 Pre and N = 82 Post).Self-report 10-item measure of surgeon confidence in managing psychosocial issues associated with trauma and perceived availability of support resources.Analyses, performed on the entire sample and repeated on the subset of 52 surgeons who responded to the survey at both times points, found surgeons at intervention sites experienced a significantly greater positive improvement (P0.05) in their (1) belief that they have strategies to help orthopaedic trauma patients change their psychosocial situation; (2) confidence in making appropriate referrals for orthopaedic trauma patients with psychosocial problems; and (3) belief that they have access to information to guide the management of psychosocial issues related to recovery.Initial data suggest that the establishment of the TCC program can improve surgeons' perceived availability of resources and their confidence in managing the psychosocial sequelae after injury. Further studies will be required to determine if this translates into beneficial patient effects.Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The optimal technique for a transtibial amputation in a young, active, and healthy patient is controversial. Proponents of the Ertl procedure (in which the cut ends of the tibia and fibula are joined with a bone bridge synostosis) argue that the residual limb is more stable which confers better prosthetic fit and improved function especially among high-performing individuals. At the same time, the Ertl procedure is associated with longer operative and healing time and may be associated with a higher complication rate compared with the standard Burgess procedure. The TAOS is a prospective, multicenter randomized trial comparing 18-month outcomes after transtibial amputation using the Ertl versus Burgess approach among adults aged 18 to 60. The primary outcomes include surgical treatment for a complication and patient-reported function. Secondary outcomes include physical impairment, pain, and treatment cost.

Although limb salvage is now possible for many high-energy open fractures and crush injuries to the distal tibia, ankle, hindfoot, and midfoot, orthotic options are limited. The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) is a custom, energy-storing carbon fiber orthosis developed for trauma patients undergoing limb salvage. The IDEO differs from other orthoses in that it allows patients with ankle weakness to have more normal ankle biomechanics and increased ankle power. This article describes the design of a study to evaluate the effectiveness of the IDEO when delivered together with a high-intensity, sports medicine-based approach to rehabilitation. It builds on earlier studies by testing the program at military treatment facilities beyond the Brooke Army Medical Center and the Center for the Intrepid where the device was developed. The PRIORITI-MTF study is a multicenter before-after program evaluation where participants at least 1 year out from a traumatic lower extremity injury serve as their own controls. Participants are evaluated before receiving the IDEO, immediately after 4 weeks of physical therapy with the IDEO and at 6 and 12 months after the completion of physical therapy. Primary outcomes include functional performance, measured using well-validated assessments of speed, agility, power, and postural stability and self-reported functioning using the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA) and the Veterans Health Survey (VR-12). Secondary outcomes include pain, depression, posttraumatic stress, and satisfaction with the IDEO.

The purpose of this study was to compare the number and types of extremity injuries treated at civilian trauma centers (CIV CENs) versus military treatment facilities (MTFs) participating in the Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) and to investigate the potential benefits of a clinical research network that includes both civilian trauma centers and MTFs. Two analyses were performed. First, registry data collected on all surgically treated fractures at four core MTFs and 21 CIV CENs over one year were compared. Second, actual numbers and distribution of patients by type of injury enrolled in three METRC studies were compared. While MTFs demonstrated higher percentages of severe injuries including open fractures, traumatic amputations, vascular injuries, contamination, and injuries with bone, muscle, and skin loss when compared to CIV CENS, the CIV CENs treated a substantially higher number and, more importantly, enrolled patients in almost all categories. Comparison of service members to civilians was challenged by several differences between the two patient populations including mechanism of injury, the medical care environment, and confounding factors such as age, social setting and co-morbidities. Despite these limitations, in times without active military conflict, clinical trials will likely rely on civilian trauma centers for patient enrollment; only when numbers are pooled across a large number of centers can requisite sample sizes be met. These data demonstrate the benefits of maintaining a military-civilian partnership to address the major gaps in research defined by the Military.

Importance Numerous studies have demonstrated that long-term outcomes after orthopedic trauma are associated with psychosocial and behavioral health factors evident early in the patient’s recovery. Little is known about how to identify clinically actionable subgroups within this population. Objectives To examine whether risk and protective factors measured at 6 weeks after injury could classify individuals into risk clusters and evaluate whether these clusters explain variations in 12-month outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants A prospective observational study was conducted between July 16, 2013, and January 15, 2016, among 352 patients with severe orthopedic injuries at 6 US level I trauma centers. Statistical analysis was conducted from October 9, 2017, to July 13, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures At 6 weeks after discharge, patients completed standardized measures for 5 risk factors (pain intensity, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse, and tobacco use) and 4 protective factors (resilience, social support, self-efficacy for return to usual activity, and self-efficacy for managing the financial demands of recovery). Latent class analysis was used to classify participants into clusters, which were evaluated against measures of function, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and self-rated health collected at 12 months. Results Among the 352 patients (121 women and 231 men; mean [SD] age, 37.6 [12.5] years), latent class analysis identified 6 distinct patient clusters as the optimal solution. For clinical use, these clusters can be collapsed into 4 groups, sorted from low risk and high protection (best) to high risk and low protection (worst). All outcomes worsened across the 4 clinical groupings. Bayesian analysis shows that the mean Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment dysfunction scores at 12 months differed by 7.8 points (95% CI, 3.0-12.6) between the best and second groups, by 10.3 points (95% CI, 1.6-20.2) between the second and third groups, and by 18.4 points (95% CI, 7.7-28.0) between the third and worst groups. Conclusions and Relevance This study demonstrates that during early recovery, patients with orthopedic trauma can be classified into risk and protective clusters that account for a substantial amount of the variance in 12-month functional and health outcomes. Early screening and classification may allow a personalized approach to postsurgical care that conserves resources and targets appropriate levels of care to more patients.

This commentary addresses the recently announced Philip Morris International (PMI) Foundation for a Smokefree World, bringing the perspectives of the leadership of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) (Lederer, Schumacker, Wedzicha, and Moss), biomedical ethicists (Wynia and Goldberg), a public health school dean (MacKenzie) who facilitated a statement on the foundation by US schools of public health, and the dean (Samet) of a school of public health that signed onto the statement.

Background Mortality prediction in trauma patients has relied upon injury severity scoring tools focused on anatomical injury. This study sought to examine whether an injury severity scoring system which includes physiologic data performs as well as anatomic injury scores in mortality prediction. Methods Using data collected from 18 Level I trauma centers and 51 non-trauma center hospitals in the US, anatomy based injury severity scores (ISS), new injury severity scores (NISS) were calculated as were scores based on a modified version of the physiology-based Kampala trauma score (KTS). Because pre-hospital intubation, when required, is standard of care in the US, a modified KTS was calculated excluding respiratory rate. The predictive ability of the modified KTS for mortality was compared with the ISS and NISS using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results A total of 4716 individuals were eligible for study. Each of the three scores was a statistically significant predictor of mortality. In this sample, the modified KTS significantly outperformed the ISS (AUC = 0.83, 95% CI 0.81–0.84 vs. 0.77, 95% CI 0.76–0.79, respectively) and demonstrated similar predictive ability compared to the NISS (AUC = 0.83, 95% CI 0.81–0.84 vs. 0.82, 95% CI 0.80–0.83, respectively). Conclusions The modified KTS may represent a useful tool for assessing trauma mortality risk in real time, as well as in administrative data where physiologic measures are available. Further research is warranted and these findings suggest that the collection of physiologic measures in large databases may improve outcome prediction.

To determine hospital costs and the adjusted risk of death associated with emergent versus elective surgery.Emergency surgery has a higher cost and worse outcomes compared with elective surgery. However, no national estimates of the excess burden of emergency surgery exist.Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2001 to 2010 were analyzed. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, or colon resection for neoplasm were included. Using generalized linear models with propensity scores, cost differences for emergent versus elective admission were calculated for each procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate the adjusted odds of mortality comparing elective and emergent cases. Discharge-level weights were applied to analyses.A total of 621,925 patients, representing a weighted population of 3,057,443, were included. The adjusted mean cost difference for emergent versus elective care was $8741.22 (30% increase) for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, $5309.78 (17% increase) for coronary artery bypass graft, and $7813.53 (53% increase) for colon resection. If 10% of the weighted estimates of emergency procedures had been performed electively, the cost benefit would have been nearly $1 billion, at $996,169,160 (95% confidence interval [CI], $985,505,565-$1,006,834,104). Elective surgery patients had significantly lower adjusted odds of mortality for all procedures.Even a modest reduction in the proportion of emergent procedures for 3 conditions is estimated to save nearly $1 billion over 10 years. Preventing emergency surgery through improved care coordination and screening offers a tremendous opportunity to save lives and decrease costs.

Orthopedic trauma remains one of the most survivable battlefield injuries seen in modern conflicts. Translating research into practice is a critical bridge that permits surgeons to further optimize medical outcomes. Orthopedic surgeons serving in the military may treat little to no trauma in their stateside practice. In conflict zones, however, the majority of their patients will have traumatic injuries. Determining risk factors for nonevidence-based practice can help identify provider knowledge gaps, which can then be targeted before deployment. Surveys were developed which sought to identify factors contributing to continued medical education and practice, as well as scenario-based questions on military-relevant orthopedic trauma. Analysis of 188 survey respondents revealed that providers with military service and less than 10 years of practice are optimally bridging research into military-relevant orthopedic trauma practice.

BACKGROUND: In order to increase trauma-related research and elevate trauma on the national research agenda, the National Trauma Institute (NTI) issued calls for proposals, selected funding recipients and coordinated sixteen federally funded (Department of Defense [DoD]) trauma research awards over a four-year period. We sought to collect and describe the lessons learned from this activity in order to inform future researchers of barriers and facilitators.METHODS: Fifteen principal investigators participated in semi-structured interviews focused on study management issues such as securing institutional approvals, screening and enrollment, multi-site trials management, project funding, staffing and institutional support. NTI Science Committee meeting minutes and study management data were included in the analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were generated and textual data were analyzed for common themes. RESULTS: PIs reported challenges in obtaining institutional approvals, delays in study initiation, screening and enrollment, multi-site management and study funding. Most were able to successfully resolve challenges and have been productive in terms of scholarly publications, securing additional research funding and training future trauma investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned in the conduct of the first two funding rounds managed by NTI are instructive in four key areas: regulatory processes, multi-site coordination, adequate funding and the importance of an established research infrastructure to ensure study success. Recommendations for addressing institution-related and investigator-related challenges are discussed along with ongoing advocacy efforts to secure sustained federal funding of a national trauma research program commensurate with the burden of injury.

Poor pain control after orthopaedic trauma is a predictor of physical disability and numerous negative long-term outcomes. Despite increased awareness of the negative consequences of poorly controlled pain, analgesic therapy among hospitalized patients after orthopaedic trauma remains inconsistent and often inadequate. The Pain study is a 3 armed, prospective, double-blind, multicenter randomized trial designed to evaluate the effect of standard pain management versus standard pain management plus perioperative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or pregabalin in patients of ages 18-85 with extremity fractures. The primary outcomes are chronic pain, opioid utilization during the 48 hours after definitive fixation and surgery for nonunion in the year after fixation. Secondary outcomes include preoperative and postoperative pain intensity, adverse events and complications, physical function, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. One year treatment costs are also compared between the groups.

Severe foot and ankle injuries are complex and challenging to treat, often requiring multiple operations to salvage the limb contributing to a prolonged healing period. There is some evidence to suggest that early amputation for some patients may result in better long-term outcomes than limb salvage. The challenge is to identify the regional injury burden for an individual that would suggest a better outcome with an amputation. The OUTLET study is a prospective, multicenter observational study comparing 18-month outcomes after limb salvage versus early amputation among patients aged 18-60 years with severe distal tibia, ankle, and foot injuries. This study aims to build upon the previous work of the Lower Extremity Assessment Project by identifying the injury and patient characteristics that help define a subgroup of salvage patients who will have better outcomes had they undergone a transtibial amputation.

Previous research suggests that the care provided to trauma patients could be improved by including early screening and management of emotional distress and psychological comorbidity. The Trauma Collaborative Care (TCC) program, which is based on the principles of well-established models of collaborative care, was designed to address this gap in trauma center care. This article describes the TCC program and the design of a multicenter study to evaluate its effectiveness for improving patient outcomes after major, high-energy orthopaedic trauma at level 1 trauma centers. The TCC program was evaluated by comparing outcomes of patients treated at 6 intervention sites (n = 481) with 6 trauma centers where care was delivered as usual (control sites, n = 419). Compared with standard treatment alone, it is hypothesized that access to the TCC program plus standard treatment will result in lower rates of poor patient-reported function, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder.

The diagnosis of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) is a common clinical challenge among patients who sustain high-energy orthopaedic trauma, largely because no validated criteria exist to reliably define the presence of the condition. In the absence of validated diagnostic standards, concern for the potential clinical and medicolegal impact of a missed compartment syndrome may result in the potential overuse of fasciotomy in "at-risk" patients. The goal of the Predicting Acute Compartment Syndrome Study was to develop a decision rule for predicting the likelihood of ACS that would reduce unnecessary fasciotomies while guarding against potentially missed ACS. Of particular interest was the utility of early and continuous monitoring of intramuscular pressure and muscle oxygenation using near-infrared spectroscopy in the timely diagnosis of ACS. In this observational study, 191 participants aged 18-60 with high-energy tibia fractures were prospectively enrolled and monitored for up to 72 hours after admission, then followed for 6 months. Treating physicians were blinded to continuous pressure and oxygenation data. An expert panel of 9 orthopaedic surgeons retrospectively assessed the likelihood that each patient developed ACS based on data collected on initial presentation, clinical course, and known functional outcome at 6 months. This retrospectively assigned likelihood is modeled as a function of clinical data typically available within 72 hours of admission together with continuous pressure and oxygenation data. This study will improve our understanding of the natural history of compartment syndrome and examine the utility of early and continuous monitoring of the physiologic status of the injured extremity in the timely diagnosis of ACS.

The treatment of high-energy open tibia fractures is challenging in both the military and civilian environments. Treatment with modern ring external fixation may reduce complications common in these patients. However, no study has rigorously compared outcomes of modern ring external fixation with commonly used internal fixation approaches. The FIXIT study is a prospective, multicenter randomized trial comparing 1-year outcomes after treatment of severe open tibial shaft fractures with modern external ring fixation versus internal fixation among men and women of ages 18-64. The primary outcome is rehospitalization for major limb complications. Secondary outcomes include infection, fracture healing, limb function, and patient-reported outcomes including physical function and pain. One-year treatment costs and patient satisfaction will be compared between the 2 groups, and the percentage of Gustilo IIIB fractures that can be salvaged without soft tissue flap among patients receiving external fixation will be estimated.

Background Previous research found a positive effect of Level-I trauma centres on return to work outcomes for patients 18–64 years old who were mainly working before injury. Trauma centres were compared to hospitals that differed on average in characteristics such as size and staffing, among others. Thus, a portion of the effect found could be due to general differences in hospital variables rather than the special characteristics of Level I trauma centres. Comparing Level I trauma centres to other Teaching hospitals provides a more refined test of the effect of these centres on return-to-work outcomes. Methods The National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma (NSCOT) is the main source of data for our empirical investigation. We used non-linear instrumental variables methods to control for unobserved characteristics and restrict the sample to teaching hospitals. The first method is the two-stage residual inclusion model in which we identify the effect using the proportion of resident population served by Helicopter Ambulance Services (at the state level) as an instrumental variable. The second method is a recursive bivariate probit model. Results We found that treatment at Level-I trauma centres has a positive effect on return to work outcomes three months after injury. The estimated effect is statistically significant and positive, but lower than the estimate that did not focus on teaching hospitals. Conclusions A previous study found positive effects of treatment at a Level-I trauma centre on return-to-work outcomes, however, a portion of the effect found was due to general differences in hospital variables.

BACKGROUND: Trauma centers are currently benchmarked on mortality outcomes alone. However, pay-for-performance measures may financially penalize centers based on complications. Our objective was to determine whether the results would be similar to the current standard method of mortality-based benchmarking if trauma centers were profiled on complications. METHODS: We analyzed data from the National Trauma Data Bank from 2007 to 2010. Patients 16 years or older with blunt or penetrating injuries and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 9 or higher were included. Risk-adjusted observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality ratios for each center were generated and used to rank each facility as high, average, or low performing. We similarly ranked facilities on O/E morbidity ratios defined as occurrence of any major complication. Concordance between hospital performance rankings was evaluated using a weighted κ statistic. Correlation between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios was assessed using Pearson coefficients. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate the competing risk of death for the morbidity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 449,743 patients from 248 facilities were analyzed. The unadjusted morbidity and mortality rates were 10.0% and 6.9%, respectively. No correlation was found between morbidity- and mortality-based O/E ratios (r = -0.01). Only 40% of the centers had similar performance rankings for both mortality and morbidity. Of the 31 high performers for mortality, only 11 centers were also high performers for morbidity. A total of 78 centers were ranked as average, and 11 ranked as low performers on both outcomes. Comparison of hospital performance status using mortality and morbidity outcomes demonstrated poor concordance (weighted κ = 0.03, p = 0.22). CONCLUSION: Mortality-based external benchmarking does not identify centers with high complication rates. This creates a dichotomy between current trauma center profiling standards and measures used for pay-for-performance. A benchmarking mechanism that reflects all measures of quality is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III. Language: en

OBJECTIVE:: To determine the risk-adjusted mortality of intentionally injured patients within 7 to 9 years postinjury, compared with unintentionally injured patients. BACKGROUND:: Violent injury contributes significantly to trauma mortality in the United States. Homicide is the second leading killer of American youth, aged 15 to 24 years. Long-term survival among intentionally injured patients has not been well studied. It is also unknown whether intentionally injured patients have worse long-term survival compared with unintentionally or accidentally injured patients with equivalent injuries. METHODS:: Adult trauma patients admitted for 24 hours or more and discharged alive from the Johns Hopkins Hospital from January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2000, were included. The primary outcome was mortality within 7 to 9 years postinjury. Long-term patient survival was determined using the National Death Index. The association between injury intentionality and mortality was investigated using a Cox proportional hazard regression model, adjusted for confounders such as injury severity and patient race, socioeconomic status, and comorbid conditions. Overall differences in survival between those with intentional versus unintentional injury were also determined by comparing adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival curves. RESULTS:: A total of 2062 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 56.4% were intentionally injured and 43.6% were unintentionally injured. Compared with unintentionally injured patients, intentionally injured patients were younger and more often male and from a zip code with low median household income. Approximately 15% of all patients had died within 7 to 9 years of follow-up. Older age and presence of comorbidities were associated with this outcome; however, intentional injury was not found to be significantly associated with long-term mortality rates. There was also no significant difference in survival curves between groups; intentionally injured patients were much more likely to die of a subsequent injury, whereas those with unintentional injury commonly died of noninjury causes. CONCLUSIONS:: There was no significant difference in mortality between intentionally injured and unintentionally injured patients within 7 to 9 years postinjury. These results confirm the long-term effectiveness of lifesaving trauma care for those with intentional injury. However, given that patients with intentional injuries were more likely to suffer a subsequent violent death, interventions focused on breaking the cycle of violence are needed. Language: en

The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is an invaluable resource to study trauma outcomes. Recent evidence suggests the existence of great variability in covariate handling and inclusion in multivariable analyses using NTDB, leading to differences in the quality of published studies and potentially in benchmarking trauma centers. Our objectives were to identify the best possible mortality risk adjustment model (RAM) and to define the minimum number of covariates required to adequately predict trauma mortality in the NTDB.Analysis of NTDB 2009 was performed to identify the best RAM for trauma mortality. For each plausible NTDB covariate, univariate logistic regression was performed, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC, with 95% confidence interval [CI]) was calculated. Covariates with p0.01 and an AUROC of 0.6 of greater or with strong previous evidence were included in the subsequent multivariate logistic regression analyses. Manual backward selection was then used to identify the most parsimonious RAM with a similar AUROC (overlapping 95% CI). Similar analyses were performed for penetrating and severely injured patient subsets. All models were validated using NTDB 2010.A total of 630,307 patients from NTDB 2009 were analyzed. A total of 16 of 106 NTDB covariates tested on univariate analyses were selected for inclusion in the initial multivariate model. The best RAM included only six covariates (age, hypotension, pulse, total Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score, Injury Severity Score [ISS], and a need for ventilator use) yet still demonstrated excellent discrimination between survivors and nonsurvivors (AUROC, 0.9578; 95% CI, 0.9565-0.9590). In addition, this model was validated on 665,138 patients included in NTDB 2010 (AUROC, 0.9577; 95% CI, 0.9564-0.9589). Similar results were obtained for the subset analyses.This quantitative synthesis proposes a framework and a set of covariates for studying trauma mortality outcomes. Such analytic standardization may prove critical in implementing best practices aimed at improving the quality and consistency of NTDB-based research.Prognostic study, level III.

The detailed study of prehospital injury death is critical to advancing trauma and emergency care, as circumstance and causality have significant implications for the development of mitigation strategies. Though there is no true ‘Golden Hour,’ the time from injury to care is a critical element in the analysis matrix, particularly in patients with severe injury. Currently, there is no standard method for the assessment of time to definitive care after injury among prehospital deaths. This article describes a methodology to estimate total prehospital time and distance for trauma patients transported via ground emergency medical services and helicopter emergency medical services using a geographic information system. Data generated using this method, along with medical examiner and field investigation reports, will be used to estimate the potential survivability of prehospital trauma deaths occurring in five US states and the District of Columbia as part of the Multi-Institutional Multidisciplinary Injury Mortality Investigation in the Civilian Pre-Hospital Environment study. One goal of this work is to develop standard metrics for the assessment of total prehospital time and distance, which can be used in the future for more complex spatial analyses to gain a deeper understanding of trauma center access. Results will be used to identify high priority areas for research and development in injury prevention, trauma system performance improvement, and public health.

Previous studies have shown that pain, depression, and anxiety are common after trauma. A longitudinal relationship between depression, anxiety, and chronic pain has been hypothesized. Severe lower extremity trauma patients (n = 545) were followed at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after injury using a visual analog "present pain intensity" scale and the depression and anxiety scales of the Brief Symptom Inventory. Structural model results are presented as Standardized Regression Weights (SRW). Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. A single structural model including all longitudinal pain intensity, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms time-points yielded excellent fit measures. Pain weakly predicted depression (3-6 months SRW = 0.07, P = .05; 6-12 months SRW = 0.06, P = .10) and anxiety (3-6 months SRW = 0.05, P = .21; 6-12 months SRW = 0.08, P = .03) during the first year after injury, and did not predict either construct beyond 1 year. Depression did not predict pain over any time period. In contrast, anxiety predicted pain over all time periods (3-6 months SRW = 0.11, P = .012; 6-12 months SRW = 0.14, P = .0065; 12-24 months SRW = 0.18, P < .0001). The results suggest that in the early phase after trauma, pain predicts anxiety and depression, but the magnitude of these relationships are smaller than the longitudinal relationship from anxiety to pain over this period. In the late (or chronic) phase after injury, the longitudinal relationship from anxiety on pain nearly doubles and is the only significant relationship. Despite missing data and a single item measure of pain intensity, these results provide evidence that negative mood, specifically anxiety, has an important role in the persistence of acute pain.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper is to compare mortality outcomes between patients treated at a trauma center in France and matched patients in the United States. BACKGROUND Although trauma systems in France and the United States differ significantly in prehospital and inhospital management, previous comparisons have been challenged by the lack of comparable data. METHODS Coarsened exact matching identified matching patients between a single center trauma database from Lyon, France, and the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) of the United States. Moderate to severely injured [injury severity score (ISS) > 8] adult patients (age ≥ 16) presenting alive to level 1 trauma centers from 2002 to 2005 with blunt or penetrating injuries were included. After matching patients, multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine difference in mortality between patients in Lyon and the NTDB. RESULTS A total of 1043 significantly injured patients were presented to the Lyon center. Matching eligible patients with complete records were sought from 219,985 patients in the NTDB. The unadjusted odds of mortality at the Lyon center was 2.5 times higher than that of the NTDB [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.18-2.98]. However, the Lyon center received patients with higher ISS, lower Glasgow Coma Score (GCS), and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) (all P < 0.001). After 1:1 matching, 858 patient pairs were produced, and the odds of mortality became equivalent [odds ratio (OR) = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.91-1.73]. Similar results were found in multiple subset analyses. CONCLUSIONS Trauma patients admitted to a single French trauma center had an equal chance of survival compared with similarly injured patients treated at US trauma centers.

The Trauma Survivors Network is a multimodal program for trauma patients and their families. Despite training representatives of 30 trauma centers, only 3 have fully implemented the program. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers to program implementation among trainees through in-depth phone interviews and an electronic survey. Although interviewees were positive about the Trauma Survivors Network concept, they identified numerous barriers to implementation. Trainee confidence in their ability to implement program components was predictive of their success. We recommend that future trainings include program advocacy, implementation skills, and an assessment of trainees' roles in the hospital.

Several studies have compared outcomes after limb salvage and amputation in an attempt to define objective criteria to guide the decision of whether and when to amputate or reconstruct a severely injured leg. Most of this research is based on experience at civilian level I trauma centers. More recently, investigations in the military setting shed some new light on the results of earlier civilian studies. In this chapter, we review the current literature from both civilian and military perspectives and discuss the factors that influence outcomes beyond the decision to amputate or reconstruct.

Objective To determine the outcome of the mangled foot and ankle undergoing limb salvage surgery that required free tissue flaps for wound closure compared with a similar patient foot and ankle injury group that underwent early below knee amputation (BKA). Design : Prospective longitudinal study. Setting : Eight level 1 trauma centers. Patients/participants LEAP (Lower Extremity Assessment Project) study. One hundred seventy-four open severely injured hindfoot or ankle injuries (116 had salvage; 58 had a BKA). Intervention Patients either required immediate amputation or salvage was attempted. Main outcome measurements The Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) was the principal measure of outcome (higher SIP scores equal greater disability). Secondary outcomes included walking speed, number of rehospitalizations for injury-related complications, time to full weight-bearing, the visual analog pain scale, and return to work at 2 years. Results When compared to patients treated with standard BKA, salvage patients who required free flaps and/or ankle arthrodesis had significantly worse 2-year outcomes. They had overall SIP scores that were 2.5 points higher and psychosocial SIP scores that were 8.4 points higher at 24 months (P = 0.014 and P = 0.013, respectively). Physical SIP scores were 3.7 points higher in the free flap and/or arthrodesis group but only approached statistical significance (P = 0.10). After adjusting for the need for free flap and/or arthrodesis, the salvage pathway had clinically, but not statistically, significantly better overall and psychosocial SIP scores than the standard BKA patients (P = 0.34 and P = 0.20, respectively). Conclusions : Patients with severe foot and ankle injuries who require free tissue transfer or ankle fusion have SIP outcomes that are significantly worse than BKA with typical skin flap design closure. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lessons learned from battle have been fundamental to advancing the care of injuries that occur in civilian life. Equally important is the need to further refine these advances in civilian practice, so they are available during future conflicts. The Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC) was established to address these needs.METRC is a network of 22 core level I civilian trauma centers and 4 core military treatment centers-with the ability to expand patient recruitment to more than 30 additional satellite trauma centers for the purpose of conducting multicenter research studies relevant to the treatment and outcomes of orthopaedic trauma sustained in the military. Early measures of success of the Consortium pertain to building of an infrastructure to support the network, managing the regulatory process, and enrolling and following patients in multiple studies.METRC has been successful in maintaining the engagement of several leading, high volume, level I trauma centers that form the core of METRC; together they operatively manage 15,432 major fractures annually. METRC is currently funded to conduct 18 prospective studies that address 6 priority areas. The design and implementation of these studies are managed through a single coordinating center. As of December 1, 2015, a total of 4560 participants have been enrolled.Success of METRC to date confirms the potential for civilian and military trauma centers to collaborate on critical research issues and leverage the strength that comes from engaging patients and providers from across multiple centers.

BACKGROUND: In order to increase trauma-related research and elevate trauma on the national research agenda, the National Trauma Institute (NTI) issued calls for proposals, selected funding recipients and coordinated sixteen federally funded (Department of Defense [DoD]) trauma research awards over a four-year period. We sought to collect and describe the lessons learned from this activity in order to inform future researchers of barriers and facilitators. METHODS: Fifteen principal investigators participated in semi-structured interviews focused on study management issues such as securing institutional approvals, screening and enrollment, multi-site trials management, project funding, staffing and institutional support. NTI Science Committee meeting minutes and study management data were included in the analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were generated and textual data were analyzed for common themes. RESULTS: PIs reported challenges in obtaining institutional approvals, delays in study initiation, screening and enrollment, multi-site management and study funding. Most were able to successfully resolve challenges and have been productive in terms of scholarly publications, securing additional research funding and training future trauma investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Lessons learned in the conduct of the first two funding rounds managed by NTI are instructive in four key areas: regulatory processes, multi-site coordination, adequate funding and the importance of an established research infrastructure to ensure study success. Recommendations for addressing institution-related and investigator-related challenges are discussed along with ongoing advocacy efforts to secure sustained federal funding of a national trauma research program commensurate with the burden of injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Not applicable. Language: en

Rivara FP, Ennis SK, Mangione-Smith R, MacKenzie EJ, Jaffe KM. Variation in adherence to new quality-of-care indicators for the acute rehabilitation of children with traumatic brain injury. Objective To determine variations in care provided by 9 inpatient rehabilitation units for children with traumatic brain injury (TBI) using newly developed quality indicators. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Nine inpatient rehabilitation units. Participants Children (N=174; age range, 0–17y) admitted for the inpatient rehabilitation of moderate to severe TBI. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Adherence to 119 newly developed quality-of-care indicators in 7 different domains: general care, family-centered care, cognitive-communication, motor, neuropsychological, school, and community integration. Results There was substantial variation both within and between institutions in the percentage of patients receiving recommended care in the 7 domains. The lowest scores were found for the school domain. Only 5 institutions scored above 50% for all quality indicators, and only 1 institution scored above 70% overall. Greater adherence to quality indicators was found for facilities with a higher proportion of therapists with pediatric training and for facilities that only admitted children. Patient volume was not associated with adherence to quality indicators. Conclusions The results indicate a tremendous variability and opportunity for improvement in the care of children with TBI.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constitute the gold standard for the generation of evidence-based medicine, but may not always be feasible. Furthermore, randomization alone does not guarantee the utility of the research, as evidenced by thousands of uninformative RCTs documented in the literature. Observational studies, including longitudinal, retrospective, and case-control designs, can contribute to the body of evidence in meaningful ways, provide useful information when an RCT is unethical or not feasible, generate hypotheses for RCTs, or provide preliminary work to better inform design of future RCTs. They can also be used to study rare outcomes, risk factors, and side effects, and to examine whether results from RCTs translate into effective treatment in routine practice. Use of modern statistical techniques, both in the study design and in the analysis stage, can improve the usefulness of the evidence obtained from observational studies.

Background Risk-adjusted analyses are critical in evaluating trauma outcomes. The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) is a statistically robust registry that allows such analyses; however, analytical techniques are not yet standardized. In this study, we examined peer-reviewed manuscripts published using NTDB data, with particular attention to characteristics strongly associated with trauma outcomes. Our objective was to determine if there are substantial variations in the methodology and quality of risk-adjusted analyses and therefore, whether development of best practices for risk-adjusted analyses is warranted. Study Design A database of all studies using NTDB data published through December 2010 was created by searching PubMed and Embase. Studies with multivariate risk-adjusted analyses were examined for their central question, main outcomes measures, analytical techniques, covariates in adjusted analyses, and handling of missing data. Results Of 286 NTDB publications, 122 performed a multivariable adjusted analysis. These studies focused on clinical outcomes (51 studies), public health policy or injury prevention (30), quality (16), disparities (15), trauma center designation (6), or scoring systems (4). Mortality was the main outcome in 98 of these studies. There were considerable differences in the covariates used for case adjustment. The 3 covariates most frequently controlled for were age (95%), Injury Severity Score (85%), and sex (78%). Up to 43% of studies did not control for the 5 basic covariates necessary to conduct a risk-adjusted analysis of trauma mortality. Less than 10% of studies used clustering to adjust for facility differences or imputation to handle missing data. Conclusions There is significant variability in how risk-adjusted analyses using data from the NTDB are performed. Best practices are needed to further improve the quality of research from the NTDB.

BACKGROUND The ideal length of follow-up for orthopedic trauma research studies is unknown. This study compares 1- and 2-year complications, clinical recovery, and functional outcomes from a large prospective clinical study. METHODS Patients (n = 336) with limb threatening unilateral lower extremity injuries were followed at the 12, 24, and 84 months. Major outcomes observed were complications requiring hospital re-admission, fracture and wound healing, attainment of full weight bearing status, return to work, and self-reported functional outcome using the Sickness Impact Profile. RESULTS The rate of newly observed complications beyond year 1 was small, ranging from 0 to