Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: a survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons

Reuse of Orthopaedic Equipment: Barriers and Opportunities

» Reuse of orthopaedic equipment is one of many potential ways to minimize the negative impact of used equipment on the environment, rising healthcare costs and disparities in access to surgical care.» Barriers to widespread adoption of reuse include concerns for patient safety, exposure to unknown liability risks, negative public perceptions, and logistical barriers such as limited availability of infrastructure and quality control metrics.» Some low- and middle-income countries have existing models of equipment reuse that can be adapted through reverse innovation to high-income countries such as the United States.» Further research should be conducted to examine the safety and efficacy of reusing various orthopaedic equipment, so that standardized guidelines for reuse can be established.

The reuse of circular external fixator components: an assessment of safety and potential savings

PURPOSE

Cost-saving strategies are important, especially in a resource-constrained environment. One such strategy well supported in the literature is the reuse of temporary monolateral external fixator components, a strategy we utilize at our institution. The aim of the study was to determine the safety and cost saving associated with the reuse of definitive circular external fixator components in a resource-constrained environment.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective review of all adult patients who were treated with either new or reused circular external fixators from a single manufacturer between January and December 2017. Reused circular external fixator components, excluding half pins and wires, were subjected to an in-house reprocessing protocol. Cost savings were calculated as the difference between the price of a completely new frame and the amount invoiced for new components only in a reused frame.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included in the study with an average age of 31.9 years. The mean duration of treatment with a circular external fixator was 5.8 months. No mechanical failure events were recorded during the study period. Our institution saved approximately 52% (R717 503.89) and 63% (R136 568.19) of expected total cost for hexapod and Ilizarov frames, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The strategy of reusing circular external fixator components is unconventional, and this study was conducted to evaluate the safety and potential savings in a resource-constrained environment. We demonstrated this practice to be reasonably safe and to result in significant cost savings which might be relevant in low-and-middle-income countries.

The environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery: assessing strategies for change

Climate change poses one of the most critical threats to humanity. Surgical care needs to be considered in relation to the impending climate emergency. Little thought appears to have been given to the role of operating departments as a high-yield target for environmental change. This article evaluates the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on anaesthesia, waste management and surgical hardware. Developing ‘green’ operating protocols should be the minimum expectation of orthopaedic departments. Just as the management of complex surgical pathology requires a multidisciplinary approach, mitigating the environmental impact of surgical endeavour requires collective action and buy-in.

Intramedullary nailing of concurrent ipsilateral fractures of the tibia and femur: primary synchronous nailing versus staged osteosynthesis with temporizing external fixation

INTRODUCTION

The optimal timing to definitive osteosynthesis in the polytraumatized patient remains an unanswered question. Early total care, damage control orthopaedics, and early appropriate care have been described to manage the fractures in these patients, but there is a paucity of literature specific to ipsilateral tibial and femoral fractures. We sought the perioperative outcomes of primary simultaneous intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus temporizing external fixation (EF) of both fractures.

METHODS

A chart review of all patients who sustained fractures of the ipsilateral femur and tibia that were definitively treated with (IMN) from January 2010 to December 2020 was performed. Patients who underwent initial EF and those that were primarily treated with IMNs were examined.

RESULTS

IMNs and EF were the initial treatment in 23 and 16 patients, respectively. The mean (range) injury severity score (ISS) was 23.3 (33) in the EF group vs. 18.5 (34) in the IMN group, (p = 0.0686). The EF group had a higher total transfused units of packed red blood cells 7.4 vs. 2.8, the mean initial operative time was 236 vs. 282.6 (min), (p = 0.7399), a longer mean total operative time 601.78 vs. 236 (min), and longer mean length of stay 15.6 vs. 11 (days), (p < 0.5). Rates of complications were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Primary IMN is as safe as provisional EF in the adequately resuscitated patient with ipsilateral femoral and tibial fractures. This implies the fixation of both fractures into a single surgery without increasing perioperative complications, and decreasing total hospital stay in patients with sufficient preoperative resuscitation.

Use of external fixators in developing countries: a short socioeconomic analysis

The use of external fixators (EFs) dates back to 377 BC Hippocrates’ time, and it has a wide range of orthopaedic applications. External fixator has expanded its use in the management of fractures and other musculoskeletal conditions. It is widely used all over the world to manage complex musculoskeletal injuries. It has many advantages as compared to internal fixation in some trauma scenarios. However, the cost of the external fixators presents a dilemma to the healthcare system in developing countries. The goals of this review article are to explain the importance of EFs in developing countries in managing fractures, to determine the problems encountered at present during external fixation by developing countries, to identify solutions that could be used to address these issues, expand the use of external fixation into other domains of treatment, the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on fracture management based on existing literature. In conclusion, EFs are very expensive, researches have been conducted to overcome these barriers in developing countries. However, there are limitations in implementing in developing countries. It is important to have affordable and clinically acceptable EFs available in developing countries.