Search

To quantify the total hospital costs associated with the treatment of lower extremity long-bone fracture aseptic and septic unhealed fracture, to determine if insurance adequately covers these costs, and to examine whether insurance type correlates with barriers to accessing care.Retrospective cohort study.Academic Level II trauma center.All patients undergoing operative treatment of OTA/AO classification 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, and 43 fractures between 2012 and 2020 at a single Level II trauma center with minimum of 1-year follow-up.The primary outcome was the total cost of treatment for all hospital-based episodes of care. Distance traveled from primary residence was measured as a surrogate for barriers to care.One hundred seventeen patients with uncomplicated fracture healing, 82 with aseptic unhealed fracture, and 44 with septic unhealed fracture were included in the final cohort. The median cost of treatment for treatment of septic unhealed fracture was $148,318 [interquartile range(IQR) 87,241-256,928], $45,230 (IQR 31,510-68,030) for treatment of aseptic unhealed fracture, and $33,991 (IQR 25,609-54,590) for uncomplicated fracture healing. The hospital made a profit on all patients with commercial insurance, but lost money on all patients with public insurance. Among patients with unhealed fracture, those with public insurance traveled 4 times further for their care compared with patients with commercial insurance (P = 0.004).Septic unhealed fracture of lower extremity long-bone fractures is an outsized burden on the health care system. Public insurance for both septic and aseptic unhealed fracture does not cover hospital costs. The increased distances traveled by our Medi-Cal and Medicare population may reflect the economic disincentive for local hospitals to care for publicly insured patients with unhealed fractures.Economic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.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).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.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.Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

There exists an unmet need for locally relevant and sustainable orthopedic research in low- and middle-income countries. Partnerships between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries can bridge gaps in resources, knowledge, infrastructure, and skill. This article presents a select list of models for high-income countries/low- and middle-income countries research partnerships including academic partnerships, international research consortia, professional society-associated working groups, and nongovernmental organization partnerships. Models that produce research with lasting legacy are those that promote mutually beneficial partnerships over individual gains.

Disparities exist in treatment modalities, including arthroscopic surgery, for orthopaedic injuries between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Arthroscopy training is a self-identified goal of LMIC surgeons to meet the burden of musculoskeletal injury. The aim of this study was to determine the necessary "key ingredients" for establishing arthroscopy centers in LMICs in order to build capacity and expand training in arthroscopy in lower-resource settings.MethodsThis study utilized semi-structured interviews with orthopaedic surgeons from both HICs and LMICs who had prior experience establishing arthroscopy efforts in LMICs. Participants were recruited via referral sampling. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed in duplicate via a coding schema based on repeated themes from preliminary interview review. Subgroup analysis was conducted between HIC and LMIC respondents.ResultsWe identified perspectives shared between HIC and LMIC stakeholders and perspectives unique to 1 group. Both groups were motivated by opportunities to improve patients' lives; the LMIC respondents were also motivated by access to skills and equipment, and the HIC respondents were motivated by teaching opportunities. Key ingredients identified by both groups included an emphasis on teaching and the need for high-cost equipment, such as arthroscopy towers. The LMIC respondents reported single-use materials as a key ingredient, while the HIC respondents reported local champions as crucial. The LMIC respondents cited the scarcity of implants and shaver blades as a barrier to the continuity of arthroscopy efforts.ConclusionsIncorporation of the identified key ingredients, along with leveraging the motivations of the host and the visiting participant, will allow future international arthroscopy partnerships to better match proposed interventions with the host-identified needs.Clinical relevanceArthroscopy is an important tool for treatment of musculoskeletal injury. Increasing access to arthroscopy is an important goal to achieve greater equity in musculoskeletal care globally. Developing successful partnerships between HICs and LMICs to support arthroscopic surgery requires sustained relationships that address local needs.

Introduction. The objective of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine whether prophylactic local antibiotics prevent surgical site infections (SSIs) in instrumented spinal fusions and traumatic fracture repair. A secondary objective is to investigate the effect of vancomycin, a common local antibiotic of choice, on the microbiology of SSIs. Methods. An electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases and major orthopedic surgery conferences was conducted to identify studies that (1) were instrumented spinal fusions or fracture repair and (2) had a treatment group that received prophylactic local antibiotics. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies were included. Meta-analysis was performed separately for randomized and nonrandomized studies with subgroup analysis by study design and antibiotic. Results. Our review includes 44 articles (30 instrumented spinal fusions and 14 fracture repairs). Intrawound antibiotics significantly decreased the risk of developing SSIs in RCTs of fracture repair (RR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.40–0.93, I2 = 32.5%) but not RCTs of instrumented spinal fusion. Among observational studies, topical antibiotics significantly reduced the risk of SSIs in instrumented spinal fusions (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.27–0.43, I2 = 52.4%) and in fracture repair (OR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37–0.65, I2 = 43.8%). Vancomycin powder decreased the risk of Gram-positive SSIs (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27–0.51, I2 = 0.0%) and had no effect on Gram-negative SSIs (OR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.62–1.44, I2 = 0.0%). Conclusions. Prophylactic intrawound antibiotic administration decreases the risk of SSIs in fracture surgical fixation in randomized studies. Therapeutic efficacy in instrumented spinal fusion was seen in only nonrandomized studies. Vancomycin appears to be an effective agent against Gram-positive pathogens. There is no evidence that local vancomycin powder is associated with an increased risk for Gram-negative infection.

Introduction: Interest in clinical rotations in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has grown among high-income country (HIC) orthopaedic residents. This study addresses the following questions: (1) What motivates HIC surgical residents to rotate in LMICs? (2) What is the impact of rotations on HIC residents? (3) What are the LMIC partner perceptions of HIC collaboration? Materials and Methods: A search strategy of multiple databases returned 3,740 unique articles pertaining to HIC surgical resident motivations for participating in rotations in LMICs or the LMIC host perspective. Data extraction was dually performed using meta-ethnography, the qualitative equivalent of meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in the final analysis. HIC residents were primarily motivated to rotate in LMICs by altruistic intent, with greatest impact on professional development. LMIC partners mostly valued HIC sustained investment and educational opportunities for LMIC partners. From LMIC's perspective, potential harm from collaboration arose from system-level and individual-level discordance between HIC and LMIC expectations and priorities. HIC priorities included the following: (1) adequate operative time, (2) exposure to varied pathology, and (3) mentorship. LMIC priorities included the following: (1) avoiding competition with HIC residents for surgical cases, (2) that HIC groups not undermine LMIC internal authority, (3) that HIC initiatives address local LMIC needs, and (4) that LMIC partners be included as authors on HIC research initiatives. Both HIC and LMIC partners raised ethical concerns regarding collaboration and perceived HIC residents to be underprepared for their LMIC rotation. Discussion: This study synthesizes the available literature on HIC surgical resident motivations for and impact of rotating in LMICs and the LMIC host perception of collaboration. Three improvement categories emerged: that residents (1) receive site-specific preparation before departure, (2) remain in country long enough to develop site-specific skills, and (3) cultivate flexibility and cultural humility. Specific suggestions based on synthesized data are offered for each concept and can serve as a foundation for mutually beneficial international electives in LMICs for HIC orthopaedic trainees.