Musculoskeletal trauma and all-cause mortality in India: a multicentre prospective cohort study

Registries: Big data, bigger problems?

Patient registries have grown in size and number along with general computing power and digitization of the healthcare world. In contrast to databases, registries are typically patient data systematically created and collected for the express purpose of answering health-related questions. Registries can be disease-, procedure-, pathology-, or product-based in nature. Registry-based studies typically fit into Level II or III in the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine. However, a recent advent in the use of registry data has been the development and execution of registry-based trials, such as the TASTE trial, which may elevate registry-based studies into the realm of Level I evidence. Some strengths of registries include the sheer volume of data, the inclusion of a diverse set of participants, and their ability to be linked to other registries and databases. Limitations of registries include variable quality of the collected data, and a lack of active follow-up (which may underestimate rates of adverse events). As with any study type, the intended design does not automatically lead to a study of a certain quality. While no specific tool exists for assessing the quality of a registry-based study, some important considerations include ensuring the registry is appropriate for the question being asked, whether the patient population is representative, the presence of an appropriate comparison group, and the validity and generalizability of the registry in question. The future of clinical registries remains to be seen, but the incorporation of big data and machine learning algorithms will certainly play an important role.

Timing of Flap Coverage With Respect to Definitive Fixation in Open Tibia Fractures

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a large, U.S wide, observational study of type III tibial fractures, with the hypothesis that delays between definitive fixation and flap coverage might be a substantial modifiable risk factor associated with nosocomial wound infection.

DESIGN

A retrospective analysis of a multicenter database of open tibial fractures requiring flap coverage.

SETTING

Fourteen level-1 trauma centers across the United States.

PATIENTS

Two hundred ninety-six (n = 296) consecutive patients with Gustilo III open tibial fractures requiring flap coverage at 14 trauma centers were retrospectively analyzed from a large orthopaedic trauma registry. We collected demographics and the details of surgical care. We investigated the patient, and treatment factors leading to infection, including the time from various points in care to the time of soft-tissue coverage.

INTERVENTION

Delay definitive fixation and flap coverage in tibial type III fractures.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

(1) Results of multivariate regression with time from injury to coverage, debridement to coverage, and definitive fixation to coverage in the model, to determine which delay measurement was most associated with infection. (2) A second multivariate model, including other factors in addition to measures of flap delay, to provide the estimate between delay and infection after adjustment for confounding.

RESULTS

Of 296 adults (227 M: 69 F) with open Gustilo type III tibial fractures requiring flap coverage, 96 (32.4%) became infected. In the multivariate regression, the time from definitive fixation to flap coverage was most predictive of subsequent wound infection (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.08, n = 260, P = 0.02) among the time measurements. Temporary internal fixation was not associated with an increased risk of infection in both univariate (P = 0.59) or multivariate analyses (P = 0.60). Flap failure was associated with the highest odds of infection (odds ratio 6.83, 95% confidence interval 3.26 to 14.27, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Orthoplastic teams that are dedicated to severe musculoskeletal trauma, that facilitate coordination of definitive fixation and flap coverage, will reduce the infection rates in Gustilo type III tibial fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression following major physical civilian trauma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Approximately 16% of the world’s burden of disease is attributable to traumatic injury. Psychological symptoms, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are prevalent in this population and impact recovery from physical injury. Nevertheless, mental health has not been considered to the same degree as physical health. Psychological interventions are used widely as treatments for PTSD.

Methods

Systematic searches of computerised databases were conducted. Randomised controlled trials of psychological treatments for PTSD following major physical civilian trauma were included. The main outcome measure was clinician-assessed symptoms of PTSD (CAPS), with findings for anxiety and depression also reported. Included studies data were extracted and entered using RevMan 5.3 software. Quality assessments were performed, and data were analysed for summary effects.

Results

10 studies were included. With regard to CAPS <6 months, individual CBT did significantly better than usual care/wait list (SMD (95% CI) = −1.24 [−1.82, −0.67]) and non-CBT treatments (SMD (95% CI) = −1.32 [−2.64, −0.04]). Non-CBT treatments were not significantly better than usual care/wait list (SMD (95% CI) −1.40 [−2.91, 0.11]). CBT was superior to usual care/wait list for reducing depressive (SMD (95% CI) −0.67 [−0.98, −0.37]) and anxiety (SMD (95% CI) −0.70 [−1.22, −0.18]) symptoms both in the shorter and longer term.

Conclusion

Individual CBT was superior to wait list/usual care, and there was limited evidence for non-CBT treatments in reducing clinician and self-rated PTSD, depressive and anxiety symptoms in the shorter term; however, the latter comparison was based on few studies with small sample sizes. Longer-term effects of treatments remain uncertain. There is a need for adequately powered RCTs investigating PTSD treatments following major physical civilian trauma in the longer term. There was considerable heterogeneity in the studies, so care must be taken in interpreting the results of this review.

A Reevaluation of the Risk of Infection Based on Time to Debridement in Open Fractures: Results of the GOLIATH Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies and Limited Trial Data

BACKGROUND

Open fractures are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. The threshold time to debridement that reduces the infection rate is unclear.

METHODS

We searched all available databases to identify observational studies and randomized trials related to open fracture care. We then conducted an extensive meta-analysis of the observational studies, using raw and adjusted estimates, to determine if there was an association between the timing of initial debridement and infection.

RESULTS

We identified 84 studies (18,239 patients) for the primary analysis. In unadjusted analyses comparing various "late" time thresholds for debridement versus "early" thresholds, there was an association between timing of debridement and surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR] = 1.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11 to 1.49, p < 0.001, I2 = 30%, 84 studies, n = 18,239). For debridement performed between 12 and 24 hours versus earlier than 12 hours, the OR was higher in tibial fractures (OR = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.87, p = 0.05, I2 = 19%, 12 studies, n = 2,065), and even more so in Gustilo type-IIIB tibial fractures (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.13 to 1.89, p = 0.004, I2 = 23%, 12 studies, n = 1,255). An analysis of Gustilo type-III fractures showed a progressive increase in the risk of infection with time. Critical time thresholds included 12 hours (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.78, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 16 studies, n = 3,502) and 24 hours (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.73 to 2.72, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%, 29 studies, n = 5,214).

CONCLUSIONS

High-grade open fractures demonstrated an increased risk of infection with progressive delay to debridement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instruction for Authors for a complete description of the levels of evidence.

Delays in hospital admissions in patients with fractures across 18 low-income and middle-income countries (INORMUS): a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery established the Three Delays framework, categorising delays in accessing timely surgical care into delays in seeking care (First Delay), reaching care (Second Delay), and receiving care (Third Delay). Globally, knowledge gaps regarding delays for fracture care, and the lack of large prospective studies informed the rationale for our international observational study. We investigated delays in hospital admission as a surrogate for accessing timely fracture care and explored factors associated with delayed hospital admission.

METHODS

In this prospective observational substudy of the ongoing International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care (INORMUS), we enrolled patients with fracture across 49 hospitals in 18 low-income and middle-income countries, categorised into the regions of China, Africa, India, south and east Asia, and Latin America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had been admitted to a hospital within 3 months of sustaining an orthopaedic trauma. We collected demographic injury data and time to hospital admission. Our primary outcome was the number of patients with open and closed fractures who were delayed in their admission to a treating hospital. Delays for patients with open fractures were defined as being more than 2 h from the time of injury (in accordance with the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery) and for those with closed fractures as being a delay of more than 24 h. Secondary outcomes were reasons for delay for all patients with either open or closed fractures who were delayed for more than 24 h. We did logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors of delays of more than 2 h in patients with open fractures and delays of more than 24 h in patients with closed fractures. Logistic regressions were adjusted for region, age, employment, urban living, health insurance, interfacility referral, method of transportation, number of fractures, mechanism of injury, and fracture location. We further calculated adjusted relative risk (RR) from adjusted odds ratios, adjusted for the same variables. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150980, and is ongoing.

FINDINGS

Between April 3, 2014, and May 10, 2019, we enrolled 31 255 patients with fractures, with a median age of 45 years (IQR 31-62), of whom 19 937 (63·8%) were men, and 14 524 (46·5%) had lower limb fractures, making them the most common fractures. Of 5256 patients with open fractures, 3778 (71·9%) were not admitted to hospital within 2 h. Of 25 999 patients with closed fractures, 7141 (27·5%) were delayed by more than 24 h. Of all regions, Latin America had the greatest proportions of patients with delays (173 [88·7%] of 195 patients with open fractures; 426 [44·7%] of 952 with closed fractures). Among patients delayed by more than 24 h, the most common reason for delays were interfacility referrals (3755 [47·7%] of 7875) and Third Delays (cumulatively interfacility referral and delay in emergency department: 3974 [50·5%]), while Second Delays (delays in reaching care) were the least common (423 [5·4%]). Compared with other methods of transportation (eg, walking, rickshaw), ambulances led to delay in transporting patients with open fractures to a treating hospital (adjusted RR 0·66, 99% CI 0·46-0·93). Compared with patients with closed lower limb fractures, patients with closed spine (adjusted RR 2·47, 99% CI 2·17-2·81) and pelvic (1·35, 1·10-1·66) fractures were most likely to have delays of more than 24 h before admission to hospital.

INTERPRETATION

In low-income and middle-income countries, timely hospital admission remains largely inaccessible, especially among patients with open fractures. Reducing hospital-based delays in receiving care, and, in particular, improving interfacility referral systems are the most substantial tools for reducing delays in admissions to hospital.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, McMaster Surgical Associates, and Hamilton Health Sciences.

International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care: Coordinating a Large-Scale Multicenter Global Prospective Cohort Study

Traditionally, the orthopaedic trauma literature has been dominated by small studies that were largely single-center initiatives. More recently, there has been a paradigm shift toward larger, multicenter studies because the orthopaedic community embraced the concepts of evidence-based medicine and the need for high-quality research to guide clinical practice. The International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care is a large multicenter international cohort study in musculoskeletal trauma in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This is the first study of this magnitude within the global orthopaedic trauma community. The International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care study has provided an opportunity to form new international collaborative relationships and to develop new research capacity and global collaborative relationships that will provide the foundation for future studies in injury prevention and management.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Management of Orthopaedic Injuries in Multiply Injured Child

Multiply injured child is a unique challenge to the medical communities worldwide. It is a leading cause of preventable mortality and morbidity in children. Common skeletal injuries include closed or open fractures of tibia and femur and pelvic injuries. Initial management focuses on saving life and then saving limb as per pediatric advanced life support and advanced trauma life support. Orthopedic management of open fracture includes splinting the limb, administration of prophylactic antibiotic, and surgical debridement of the wound when safe. However, gross contamination, compartment syndrome, and vascular injuries demand urgent attention.

Bigger Data, Bigger Problems

Clinical studies frequently lack the ability to reliably answer their research questions because of inadequate sample sizes. Underpowered studies are subject to multiple sources of bias, may not represent the larger population, and are regularly unable to detect differences between treatment groups. Most importantly, an underpowered study can lead to incorrect conclusions. Big data can be used to address many of these concerns, enabling researchers to answer questions with increased certainty and less likelihood of bias. Big datasets, such as The National Hip Fracture Database in the United Kingdom and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry, collect valuable clinical information that can be used by researchers to guide patient care and inform policy makers, chief executives, commissioners, and clinical staff. The range of research questions that can be examined is directly related to the quality and complexity of the data, which is positively associated with the cost of the data. However, technological advancements have unlocked new possibilities for efficient data capture and widespread opportunities to merge massive datasets, particularly in the setting of national registries and administrative data.

Strategically Leapfrogging Education in Prehospital Trauma Management: Four-Tiered Training Protocols

Trauma-related injury in fast developing countries are linked to 90% of international mortality rates, which can be greatly reduced by improvements in often non-existent or non-centralized emergency medical systems (EMS)-particularly in the pre-hospital care phase. Traditional trauma training protocols-such as Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS), International Trauma Life Support (ITLS), and Basic Life Support (BLS)-have failed to produce an effective pre-hospital ground force of medical first responders. To overcome these barriers, we propose a new four-tiered set of trauma training protocols: Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) Trauma Training, Acute Trauma Training (ATT), Broad Trauma Training (BTT), and Cardiac and Trauma Training (CTT). These standards are specifically differentiated to accommodate the educational and socioeconomic diversity found in fast developing settings, where each free course is taught in native, lay language while ensuring the education standards are maintained by fully incorporating high-fidelity simulation, video-recorded debriefing, and retraining. The innovative pedagogy of this trauma education program utilizes MOOC for global scalability and a "train-the-trainer" approach for exponential growth-both components help fast developing countries reach a critical mass of first responders needed for the base of an evolving EMS.