Engineering standards for trauma and orthopaedic implants worldwide: a systematic review protocol

Global Health Inequities in Orthopaedic Care: Perspectives Beyond the US

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The burden of musculoskeletal disease is increasing globally and disproportionately affecting people in low and middle income countries (LMIC). We sought to review global access to orthopaedic care, burden of trauma, research infrastructure, impact of surgical mission trips, implant availability, and the effect of COVID-19 upon the delivery of orthopaedic care worldwide.

RECENT FINDINGS

The majority of people in LMIC do not have access to safe, quality surgical care, and there are few fellowship-trained orthopaedic traumatologists. Road traffic accidents are the leading cause of long bone fractures in LMIC and result in significant morbidity and mortality. Of the orthopaedic literature published globally in the last 10 years, less than 15% had authors from LMIC. There has been growth in surgical mission trips to LMIC, but few organizations have established bidirectional partnerships. Among the challenges to delivering quality musculoskeletal care in LMIC is timely access to quality orthopaedic implants. Implant options in LMIC are more limited and subjected to less rigorous testing and regulation than high income countries (HIC). The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically reduced elective surgeries but saw the increase in telemedicine utilization which has prevailed in both HIC and LMIC. Awareness of global inequities in orthopaedic care is growing. Much can be learned through collaborations between orthopaedic surgeons from HIC and LMIC to advance patient care worldwide. There is a need for high quality, accurate data regarding incidence and prevalence of musculoskeletal disease, care utilization/availability, and postoperative outcomes so resources can be allotted to make orthopaedic care more equitable globally.

Standardized artificially created stable pertrochanteric femur fractures present more homogenous results compared to osteotomies for orthopaedic implant testing

Background

With regard to biomechanical testing of orthopaedic implants, there is no consensus on whether artificial creation of standardized bone fractures or their simulation by means of osteotomies result in more realistic outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to artificially create and analyze in an appropriate setting the biomechanical behavior of standardized stable pertrochanteric fractures versus their simulation via osteotomizing.

Methods

Eight pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric femora aged 72.7 ± 14.9 years (range 48–89 years) were assigned in paired fashion to two study groups. In Group 1, stable pertrochanteric fractures AO/OTA 31-A1 were artificially created via constant force application on the anterior cortex of the femur through a blunt guillotine blade. The same fracture type was simulated in Group 2 by means of osteotomies. All femora were implanted with a dynamic hip screw and biomechanically tested in 20° adduction under progressively increasing physiologic cyclic axial loading at 2 Hz, starting at 500 N and increasing at a rate of 0.1 N/cycle. Femoral head fragment movements with respect to the shaft were monitored by means of optical motion tracking.

Results

Cycles/failure load at 15° varus deformation, 10 mm leg shortening and 15° femoral head rotation around neck axis were 11324 ± 848/1632.4 ± 584.8 N, 11052 ± 1573/1605.2 ± 657.3 N and 11849 ± 1120/1684.9 ± 612.0 N in Group 1, and 10971 ± 2019/1597.1 ± 701.9 N, 10681 ± 1868/1568.1 ± 686.8 N and 10017 ± 4081/1501.7 ± 908.1 N in Group 2, respectively, with no significant differences between the two groups, p ≥ 0.233.

Conclusion

From a biomechanical perspective, by resulting in more consistent outcomes under dynamic loading, standardized artificial stable pertrochanteric femur fracture creation may be more suitable for orthopaedic implant testing compared to osteotomizing the bone.

Impact of Design on Medical Device Safety

The growing number of emerging medical technologies and sophistication of modern medical devices (MDs) that improve both survival and quality of life indexes are often challenged by alarming cases of vigilance data cover-up and lack of sufficient pre- and post-authorization controls. Combining Quality with Risk Management processes and implementing them as early as possible in the design of MDs has proven to be an effective strategy to minimize residual risk. This article aims to discuss how the design of MDs interacts with their safety profile and how this dipole of intended performance and safety may be supported by Human Factors Engineering (HFE) throughout the Total Product Life-Cycle (TPLC) of an MD in order to capitalize on medical technologies without exposing users and patients to unnecessary risks.