What is the Case Volume of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons in the Military Health System? An Assessment of Wartime Readiness and Skills Sustainment

INTRODUCTION

Complex, high-energy extremity trauma secondary to explosive mechanisms has been increasingly common in modern warfare, accounting for a majority of combat wounds throughout the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons treated many of these complex injuries; however, as the number of casualties continue to decrease during a period of relative peace, a growing concern over maintaining military trauma readiness exists.

METHODS

The Military Health System Data Repository was queried for all Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes associated with 18 fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons from 2013 to 2019. The codes were further analyzed and categorized based on common trauma subspecialty procedures such as fracture fixation of the pelvic ring, acetabulum, upper and lower extremity, peri-articular, and nonunion/malunion surgery. We used descriptive statistics to quantify both the average number of cases per surgeon per year in each of the subcategories and case volume among Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) during the study period.

RESULTS

We identified 7,769 CPT codes for surgical procedures throughout the study period. The most common surgical procedures performed were: removal of implant (n = 836, 11%), knee arthroscopy (n = 507, 7%), and debridement of devitalized tissue (n = 345, 4%). The total trauma subspecialty procedural codes and average cases per surgeon per year were as follows: pelvic ring (n = 54, <1 case/year), acetabulum (n = 90, 1 case/year), upper extremity (n = 1,314, 15 cases/year), lower extremity (n = 2,286, 25 cases/year), peri-articular (n = 675, 8 cases/year), and nonunion/malunion (n = 288, 3 cases/year). San Antonio Military Medical Center (SAMMC) accounted for the most fracture-related CPT codes overall (35%), while all other MTFs contributed approximately 10% or less of all fracture-related codes.

CONCLUSIONS

These results highlight the lack of orthopaedic trauma volume at other MTFs outside of SAMMC, raising concern for maintaining military readiness during an inter-war period of relative peace. The DoD continues to make concerted efforts to maintain readiness through civilian partnerships and subsequently increase surgical case volume for military trauma surgeons. Future efforts should include an in-depth analysis of caseloads of military trauma surgeons providing care at both MTFs and civilian institutions to optimize preparedness in future conflicts.

The global burden of fracture-related infection: can we do better?

Fracture-related infection is a major complication related to musculoskeletal injuries that not only has important clinical consequences, but also a substantial socioeconomic impact. Although fracture-related infection is one of the oldest disease entities known to mankind, it has only recently been defined and, therefore, its global burden is still largely unknown. In this Personal View, we describe the origin of the term fracture-related infection, present the available data on its global impact, and discuss important aspects regarding its prevention and management that could lead to improved outcomes in both high-resource and low-resource settings. We also highlight the need for health-care systems to be adequately compensated for the high cost of human resources (trained staff) and well-equipped facilities required to adequately care for these complex patients. Our aim is to increase awareness among clinicians and policy makers that fracture-related infection is a disease entity that deserves prioritisation in terms of research, with the goal to standardise treatment and improve patient outcomes on a global scale.

A Quantitative and Qualitative Literature Analysis of the Orthopedic Surgeons' Experience: Reflecting on 20 Years in the Global War on Terror

INTRODUCTION

After over 20 years of war in the Middle East, orthopedic injuries have been among the most prevalent combat-related injuries, accounting for 14% of all surgical procedures at Role 2/3 (R2/R3) facilities according to the DoD Trauma Registry. To further delineate the role of the deployed orthopedic surgeon on the modern battlefield, a retrospective review was performed highlighting both quantitative and qualitative analysis factors associated with orthopedic surgical care during the war in the Middle East.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of orthopedic surgeons in the Middle East from 2001 to 2021. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases using a two-reviewer strategy. Articles were compiled and reviewed using Covidence. Inclusion criteria included journal articles focusing on orthopedic injuries sustained during the Global War on Terror (GWoT) in an adult U.S. Military population. In the event of a conflict, a third author would determine the relevance of the article. For the remaining articles, a full-text review was conducted to extract relevant predetermined quantitative data, and the Delphi consensus method was then utilized to highlight relevant qualitative themes.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1,226 potentially relevant articles. In all, 40 studies ultimately met the eligibility criteria. With the consultation of previously deployed orthopedic surgeons at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a retrospective thematic analysis of the 40 studies revealed five themes encompassing the orthopedic surgeons experience throughout GWoT. These themes include unique mechanisms of orthopedic injury compared to previous war injuries due to novel weaponry, differences in interventions depending on R2 versus R3 locations, differences in injuries from those seen in civilian settings, the maintained emphasis on humanitarian aspect of an orthopedic surgeon's mission, and lastly relation of pre-deployment training to perceived deployed success of the orthopedic surgeons. From this extensive review, we found that explosive mechanisms of injury were greatly increased when compared to previous conflicts and were the etiology for the majority of orthopedic injuries sustained. With the increase of complex explosive injuries in the setting of improved body armor and overall survival, R2/3 facilities showed an increased demand for orthopedic intervention including debridement, amputations, and external fixation. Combat injuries sustained during the GWoT differ in the complications, management, and complexity when compared to civilian trauma. "Humanitarian" cases made up a significant number of operative cases for the deployed orthopedic surgeon. Lastly, heterogeneous training opportunities were available prior to deployment (fellowship, combat extremity surgical courses, and dedicated pre-deployment training), and the most commonly identified useful training was learning additional soft-tissue coverage techniques.

CONCLUSION

These major themes indicate an emphasis on pre-deployment training and the strategic positioning of orthopedic surgeons to reflect the changing landscape of musculoskeletal trauma care. Moving forward, these authors recommend analyzing the comfort and perceived capability of orthopedic surgeons in these unique military environments to best prepare for a changing operational format and the possibility of future peer-peer conflicts that will likely lead to a lack of medical evacuation and prolonged field care.

An Analysis of Head and Neck Surgical Workload During Recent Combat Operations From 2002 to 2016

INTRODUCTION

In battle-injured U.S. service members, head and neck (H&N) injuries have been documented in 29% who were treated for wounds in deployed locations and 21% who were evacuated to a Role 4 MTF. The purpose of this study is to examine the H&N surgical workload at deployed U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to inform training, needed proficiency, and MTF manning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the DoD Trauma Registry was performed for all Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs, from January 2002 to May 2016; 385 ICD-9 CM procedure codes were identified as H&N surgical procedures and were stratified into eight categories. For the purposes of this analysis, H&N procedures included dental, ophthalmologic, airway, ear, face, mandible maxilla, neck, and oral injuries. Traumatic brain injuries and vascular injuries to the neck were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 15,620 H&N surgical procedures were identified at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs. The majority of H&N surgical procedures (14,703, 94.14%) were reported at Role 3 facilities. Facial bone procedures were the most common subgroup across both roles of care (1,181, 75.03%). Tracheostomy accounted for 16.67% of all H&N surgical procedures followed by linear repair of laceration of eyelid or eyebrow (8.23%) and neck exploration (7.41%). H&N caseload was variable.

CONCLUSIONS

H&N procedures accounted for 8.25% of all surgical procedures performed at Role 2 and Role 3 MTFs; the majority of procedures were eye (40.54%) and airway (18.50%). These data can be used as planning tools to help determine the medical footprint and also to help inform training and sustainment requirements for deployed military general surgeons especially if future contingency operations are more constrained in terms of resources and personnel.

Ascertaining the Readiness of Military Orthopedic Surgeons: A Revision to the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities Methodology

INTRODUCTION

Decay of military surgeons' critical wartime skills is a persistent and growing concern among leaders in the military health system (MHS). The Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA) Clinical Readiness Program was developed to quantify the readiness of clinicians in the MHS; however, the utility of the data is questionable due to a lack of focus on the operative expeditionary skillset in the original methodology. A revised methodology emphasizing the most relevant to expeditionary orthopedic surgery procedures is described.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes included in the original KSA methodology were reviewed and, if appropriate, removed, or reassigned to more suitable categories. Category scores were weighted to better align with the most performed procedures in the deployed environment. All surgical cases and procedures performed from 2017-2019 in military treatment facilities by orthopedic surgeons were recorded in total and by MHS market. Cases were recorded for all military orthopedic surgeons who performed at least one KSA credit procedure during the study period. The 10 MHS markets with the greatest number of procedures were included in the analysis. The change in creditable KSA procedure codes and procedures performed from the original to revised methodology was determined for each KSA category and MHS market.

RESULTS

Overall, 403 CPT codes were recategorized and 79 were deleted from the original KSA methodology. The deletions represented less than 4% of the original creditable CPT codes, with most being supply or injection codes. Three of the five most common expeditionary KSA categories increased in the number of creditable procedure codes. The impact of the revision on the MHS markets was mixed, but the overall volume of credited procedures decreased. The weighted scoring did not disproportionately affect the analyzed markets.

CONCLUSIONS

The revised methodology is better aligned with the most common procedures in the most recent large-scale military engagements. The improved applicability of the KSA scoring to necessary CWS will allow military medical leaders to better determine the readiness opportunities available in the MHS.

Impact of Civilian Patient Care on Major Amputation Case Volume in the Military Health System

BACKGROUND

Sustaining critical wartime skills (CWS) during interwar periods is a recurrent and ongoing challenge for military surgeons. Amputation surgery for major extremity trauma is exceptionally common in wartime, so maintenance of surgical skills is necessary. This study was designed to examine the volume and distribution of amputation surgery performed in the military health system (MHS).

STUDY DESIGN

All major amputations performed in military treatment facilities (MTF) for calendar years 2017-2019 were identified by current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. The date of surgery, operating surgeon National Provider Identifier, CPT code(s), amputation etiology (traumatic versus nontraumatic), and beneficiary status (military or civilian) were recorded for each surgical case.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and eighty-four major amputations at 16 of the 49 military's inpatient facilities were identified, with two MTFs accounting for 46% (548/1,184) of the total. Six MTFs performed 120 major amputations for the treatment of acute traumatic injuries. Seventy-three percent (87/120) of traumatic amputations were performed at MTF1, with the majority of patients (86%; 75/87) being civilians emergently transported there after injury. Orthopedic and vascular surgeons performed 78% of major amputations, but only 9.7% (152/1,570) of all military surgeons performed any major amputation, with only 3% (52) involved in amputations for trauma. Nearly all (87%; 26/30) of the orthopedic surgeons at MTF1 performed major amputations, including those for trauma.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of civilian patient care to increase major amputation surgical case volume and complexity to sustain critical wartime skills. The preservation and strategic expansion of effective military-civilian partnerships is essential for sustaining the knowledge and skills for optimal combat casualty care.

Forward Surgical Teams as a Model for Humanitarian Orthopedic Surgical Care: A Review of Current Literature

INTRODUCTION

Orthopedic trauma is a significant portion of global burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This has led the World Health Organization to advocate for increased surgical intervention in LMICs. The two largest barriers to orthopedic surgical care for LMICs are cost of procedure and geographic access to centers with appropriate surgical capabilities. There is no current consensus on how to structure surgical interventional teams. The overall objective of this study is to describe the composition of a forward surgical team (FST), including its abilities and limitations. It is hypothesized that an FST is an effective model for orthopedic surgical relief efforts in LMICs.

METHODS

A narrative literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis standards published by the National Academies of Medicine. Studies were evaluated by structured review procedures to identify an FST's capacity for orthopedic surgery, as well as applicability for humanitarian care. Articles detailing FST logistics, types of orthopedic treatment provided, and instances of humanitarian care while deployed in austere environments were included for review.

RESULTS

The FST is a military surgical unit operating with a small crew of surgeons and supporting staff who use tents or trailers that can be positioned near points of conflict, often in remote or austere environments. FSTs were designed to treat traumatic injuries, including orthopedic trauma from RTIs. If used as a sponsored humanitarian aid mission, FSTs can provide surgical care at free or greatly reduced costs. Because FSTs carry limited supplies and personnel, they are highly mobile surgical units that can be transported via truck.

CONCLUSION

FSTs are effective models for humanitarian orthopedic surgery in LMICs. FSTs were designed to treat orthopedic trauma, the largest burden of orthopedic care in LMICs. Efficient use of limited equipment allows FSTs to be cost effective for funding sources and highly mobile to reduce the geographic barrier to care. Further research is needed to determine the cost to operate an FST and ethical consideration for military intervention for foreign humanitarian aid.

The Burden of Fingertip Trauma on the US Military

Fingertip injuries in the military are common and often hinder the fighting force and support personnel. Injuries range from small subungual hematomas to proximal finger amputations. Treatment modalities are dictated by injury patterns, anatomic considerations, and the need to return to duty. Nail bed injuries should be repaired when possible and exposed bone or tendon is treated with appropriate soft tissue coverage. If soft tissue coverage is unobtainable, revision amputation should be performed with attention given to maintaining as much finger length as possible. Antibiotics may not be required, however they are often utilized in the deployed setting.