The impact of trauma centre designation on open tibial fracture management

Comparing outcomes following direct admission and early transfer to specialized trauma centers in open tibial fracture treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines on the management of open tibia fractures recommend timely treatment in a limb reconstruction center which offer joint orthopedic-trauma and plastic surgery services. However, patient's transfer between centers remains inevitable. This review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and hospital factors for patients directly admitted and transferred patients to a limb-reconstruction center.

METHODS

A research protocol adhering to PRISMA standards was established. The search included databases like MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library up until March 2023. Nine articles met the inclusion criteria, focusing on open tibia fractures. Exclusion criteria were experimental studies, animal studies, and case reports. Outcomes of interest were operation and infection rates, nonunion, limb salvage, and the Enneking limb score.

RESULTS

The analysis involved data from 520 patients across nine studies published between 1990 and 2023, with the majority (83.8%) having Gustilo Anderson type III open tibia fractures. Directly admitted patients showed lower overall infection rates (RR 0.30; 95% CI 0.10-0.90; P = 0.03) and fewer deep infections (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.22-0.68; P = 0.001) compared to transferred patients. Transferred patients experienced an average five-day delay in soft tissue closure and extended hospital stays by eight days. Patients transferred without initial surgical management underwent fewer total surgical procedures. The direct admission group displayed more favorable functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Low- to moderate-quality evidence indicates worse clinical outcomes for transferred patients compared to directly admitted patients. Early treatment in specialized limb reconstruction units is essential for improved results in the management of open tibia fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level IIa.

Comparison of trauma care structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service and Quebec, Canada

BACKGROUND

Comparisons across trauma systems are key to identifying opportunities to improve trauma care. We aimed to compare trauma service structures, processes and outcomes between the English National Health Service (NHS) and the province of Quebec, Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre cohort study including admissions of patients aged older than 15 years with major trauma to major trauma centres (MTCs) from 2014/15 to 2016/17. We compared structures descriptively, and time to MTC and time in the emergency department (ED) using Wilcoxon tests. We compared mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) using multilevel logistic regression with propensity score adjustment, stratified by body region of the worst injury.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 36 337 patients from the NHS and 6484 patients from Quebec. Structural differences in the NHS included advanced prehospital medical teams (v. "scoop and run" in Quebec), helicopter transport (v. fixed-wing aircraft) and trauma team leaders. The median time to an MTC was shorter in Quebec than in the NHS for direct transports (1 h v. 1.5 h, p < 0.001) but longer for transfers (2.5 h v. 6 h, p < 0.001). Time in the ED was longer in Quebec than in the NHS (6.5 h v. 4.0 h, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds of death were higher in Quebec for head injury (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-1.51) but lower for thoracoabdominal injuries (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.90). The adjusted median hospital LOS was longer for spine, torso and extremity injuries in the NHS than in Quebec, and the median ICU LOS was longer for spine injuries.

CONCLUSION

We observed significant differences in the structure of trauma care, delays in access and risk-adjusted outcomes between Quebec and the NHS. Future research should assess associations between structures, processes and outcomes to identify opportunities for quality improvement.

The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study : epidemiology of open fracture care in the UK

AIMS

Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK.

METHODS

Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81).

CONCLUSION

This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746-752.

Open ankle fractures: Factors influencing unplanned reoperation

INTRODUCTION

Ankle fractures are amongst the most common open fracture injuries presenting to major trauma centres (MTC) and their management remains a topic of debate. Incidence is increasing particularly in the elderly population however the optimal surgical approach and risk factors for unplanned reoperation remain scarce. We therefore conducted a retrospective case study to analyse our institution's outcomes as well as identify risk factors for early unplanned reoperation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-five consecutive open ankle fractures were identified using our institutional database between July 2016 and July 2020. Medical records and operation notes were reviewed to identify patient age at injury, Sex, co-morbidities and other co-morbidities, fracture configuration, extent of soft tissue injury, fixation type and post-operative complications. The data was categorised into four groups for analysis, 1) age, 2) AO-OTA classification 3) Sex 4) Gustilo-Anderson grade. Statistical analysis was undertaken to identify predictors of unplanned reoperation.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients at the time of injury was 60.8. Unplanned reoperation rate was 17.5%. Age and Gustilo-Anderson classification grade were both statistically significant predictors of unplanned reoperation. AO-OTA classification, Sex and Diabetes were not statistically significant factors associated with unplanned reoperation.

CONCLUSION

Age and quality of soft tissue envelope are significant risk factors for unplanned reoperation. Patients with these risk factors may benefit from an alternative surgical approach.

Open tibial fractures: An overview

Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with multifactorial outcomes and variable prognosis. The close proximity of the tibia to the skin makes it prone to extensive soft tissue damage and subsequent detrimental complications, such as infection and non-union. Thus, they were historically associated with high rates of amputation, sepsis, or even death. The advancement of surgical instruments and techniques, along the emergence of evidence-based guidance, have resulted in a significant reduction in complications. Peculiarly though, modern management strategies have a strong foundation in practices described in the ancient times. Nevertheless, post-operative complications are still a challenge in the management of open tibial fractures. Efforts are actively being made to refine the surgical approaches used, while noteworthy is the emergence of the Orthoplastic approach. The aim of this review is to summarise and discuss the historical perspective of the management of open tibial fractures, their epidemiology and classification, up-to-date principles of surgical management and outcomes following injury.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of open fractures in a major trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

The Coronavrius-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented the biggest challenge that the National Health Service (NHS) has ever seen. As one of the worst affected regions, Orthopaedic service provision and delivery in London, changed dramatically. Our hypothesis is that these restrictions adversely impacted the care of open fractures in our major trauma unit in London.

METHODS

This is a prospective case control study comparing the management of patients presenting pre-COVID, to those presenting during the height of the COVID pandemic in London. The pre-COVID, control cohort presented between the 1st October and the November 30, 2019. The COVID cohort presented between the April 1, 2020 and the May 31, 2020. Data was collected that related to the 11 clinical domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standards of Trauma (BOAST) 4 guidance, as well as early complications.

RESULTS

Of the 11 domains, 100 % compliance was achieved in 6 components, across both groups where applicable. During pre-COVID times, the timing to initial debridement was within 12 h for High energy trauma in 16/28 (57.1 %), dropping to 7/22 (31.8 %) during COVID, (p = 0.004). Definitive soft tissue closure within 72 h If not achievable at initial debridement dropped from 9/10 (90.0%) to 4/6 (66.7 %), (p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in early complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Coronavirus has changed the landscape of healthcare worldwide and impacted open fracture care by increasing time to theatre. This had no effect on early complication rate but longer term effects remain to be seen.

Gaps in the Care of Open Fractures: An Indian Scenario

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

There is a distinct lack of published studies evaluating the reasons for delay in definitive treatment of open fractures. This study aimed to determine the specific factors causing delay in the timely treatment of open fractures from the time of injury and to analyse the quality of treatment performed at the pre-hospital level.

METHODS

In total, 250 consecutive patients with open fractures were assessed for time to surgery from injury and admission. The referred patients were analysed for distance of travel, level of referring hospital and appropriateness of care. The reasons for delay in terms of infrastructural- and patient-related factors were analysed individually and in combination.

RESULTS

There were 37 direct patients (Group A) and 213 referred patients (Group B). Inappropriate care was present in 172 out of 213 (80.8%) referred patients. In total, 84% patients travelled more than 50 kms. The definitive surgery in referred patients was likely to be significantly delayed with regard to time from injury (29.84 vs 44.84 h, p ≤ 0.02). After admission, the time to surgery was greater than 24 h in 102 patients. Multivariate regression analysis determined that associated injuries and lack of fitness for surgery caused greater delay than non-availability of operation theatre or intensive care unit bed.

CONCLUSION

Delayed referral, inadequate pre-hospital care and delay in surgery due to patient- and infrastructural-related issues at tertiary centre were identified as critical gaps in open fracture care in India. The importance of appropriate basic knowledge about management of open fractures should be emphasized at all structural level of care.

The Effect of Delayed Surgical Debridement in the Management of Open Tibial Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Open tibial fractures are complex injuries with variable outcomes that significantly impact patients’ lives. Surgical debridement is paramount in preventing detrimental complications such as infection and non-union; however, the exact timing of debridement remains a topic of great controversy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the association between timing of surgical debridement and outcomes such as infection and non-union in open tibial fractures. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to capture studies evaluating the association between timing of initial surgical debridement and infection or non-union, or other reported outcomes. We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed Central, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central and Web of Science electronic databases. Our methodology was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Results: The systematic review included 20 studies with 10,032 open tibial fractures. The overall infection rate was 14.3% (314 out of 2193) and the overall non-union rate 14.2% (116 out of 817). We did not find any statistically significant association between delayed debridement and infection rate (OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.11; p = 0.23) or non-union rate (OR = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.15; p = 0.13). These findings did not change when we accounted for the effect of different time thresholds used for defining early and late debridement, nor with the Gustilo–Anderson classification or varying study characteristics. Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis support that delayed surgical debridement does not increase the infection or non-union rates in open tibial fracture injuries. Consequently, we propose that a reasonable delay in the initial debridement is acceptable to ensure that optimal management conditions are in place, such that the availability of surgical expertise, skilled staff and equipment are prioritised over getting to surgery rapidly. We recommend changing the standard guidance around timing for performing surgical debridement to ‘as soon as reasonably possible, once appropriate personnel and equipment are available; ideally within 24-h’.

Open lower limb fractures in the UK trauma system: A multicentre prospective audit of current practice

INTRODUCTION

Open fractures represent limb-threatening and life-changing injuries. Clear standards define how patients with these injuries should be managed in the UK. The study of open fractures is, therefore, a key measurable example of major trauma management as a whole. This study was conducted to characterise the demographic, assessment and treatment of patients sustaining lower limb open fractures across UK Regional Trauma Networks.

METHODS

A prospective, multicentre, audit was conducted according to a prespecified protocol against the relevant British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) & British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) standards for Trauma. All UK hospitals treating adults with open fractures were eligible to take part in the study. Patients included were injured during a six month collection period at each site.

RESULTS

3 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 5 Trauma Units (TUs) were enrolled, with data collected by 24 collaborators. 239 patients were included, 11 had bilateral open fractures. There were 38 patient datasets collected from TUs and 201 from MTCs. Patients were predominantly male with high energy injuries. 31.3% of patients from MTCs were transferred in from another facility. Antibiotics were given to 41.7% of patients within 1 hour. 74.4% of limbs with open fractures had a splint applied in the emergency department. 85.8% of patients had a documented orthoplastics plan. 41.7% of patients with a high energy injury had their wound debrided within 12 hours.

DISCUSSION

42.3% of patients with open fractures in our cohort were managed at some point in a TU, indicating triage was required within the trauma network. Due to sampling, we may be under-estimating the number of patients passing through TUs, however, we have demonstrated that this cohort exists. These patients are under-represented in many other studies and registries such as the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN) due to the funding model for data collection that privileges data collection in MTCs.

CONCLUSION

This study gives extensive new insight into the demographics and management of patients with open lower limb fractures in the UK, demonstrating a widespread involvement of TUs and consistent deviation from national standards.

Direct admission versus transfer to a tertiary hospital for definitive management of lower extremity injuries: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Delays in definitive management for traumatic lower extremity injuries may result in morbidity. We compared patients with lower extremity injuries directly admitted to a tertiary hospital for definitive care with patients transferred to that hospital following initial treatment elsewhere.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched. Participants sustained lower extremity injuries, definitively treated at a tertiary hospital. Interventions were direct admission to a tertiary hospital for definitive care and patients transferred to that hospital for definitive care after initial management at another location. PRISMA, Cochrane, and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation certainty-evidence guidelines were implemented.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies published from 1991 to 2020 compared 3,367 patients directly admitted with 1,046 patients transferred to a hospital for definitive management of lower extremity injuries. Direct admission to a tertiary center, compared with transfer, decreased time to first definitive surgical procedure (standard mean difference, -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.57 to -0.16; p = 0.0006; participants, 788; studies, 6; I2 = 34%; high-certainty evidence) and wound infections (risk ratio [RR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.77; p = 0.007; participants, 475; studies, 7; I2 = 27%; high-certainty evidence). Risks for diabetic patients (RR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.77-0.98; p = 0.03; participants, 2,973; studies, 4; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), total number of surgeries (standard mean difference, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.02 to -0.36; p < 0.0001; participants, 259; studies, 4; I2 = 35%; moderate-certainty evidence), osteomyelitis (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28-0.80; p = 0.006; participants, 212; studies, 2; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence), and total complications (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.32-0.67; p < 0.0001; participants, 729; studies, 5; I2 = 32%; moderate-certainty evidence) are likely lower for direct admits compared with transfers. Direct admission may reduce risks for systemic infections (RR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.51; p = 0.007; participants, 198; studies, 2; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.73; p = 0.02; participants, 94; studies, 1; low-certainty evidence), and postoperative bleeding (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59-0.93; p = 0.01; participants, 2,725; studies, 3; I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence), compared with transfer.

CONCLUSION

Earlier admission to a definitive tertiary center avoids morbidity associated with transfer delays.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/meta-analysis, level III.

The Value of an Orthoplastic Approach to Management of Lower Extremity Trauma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Management of traumatic lower extremity injuries requires a skill set of orthopedic surgery and plastic surgery to optimize the return of form and function. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed comparing demographics, injuries, and surgical outcomes of patients sustaining lower extremity traumatic injuries receiving either orthoplastic management or nonorthoplastic management.

Methods:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis, Cochrane, and GRADE certainty evidence guidelines were implemented for the structure and synthesis of the review. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were systematically and independently searched. Nine studies published from 2013 through 2019 compared 1663 orthoplastic managed patients to 692 nonorthoplastic managed patients with traumatic lower extremity injuries.

Results:

Orthoplastic management, compared to nonorthoplastic management likely decreases time to bone fixation [standard mean differences: −0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.46 to −0.25, P < 0.0001; participants = 1777; studies = 3; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence], use of negative pressure wound therapy [risk ratios (RR): 0.03, 95% CI: 0.00–0.24, P = 0.0007; participants = 189; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence] with reliance on healing by secondary intention (RR: 0.02, 95% CI: 0.00–0.10, P < 0.0001; participants = 189; studies = 2; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and risk of wound/osteomyelitis infections (RR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.23–0.61, P < 0.0001; participants = 224; studies = 3; I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence). Orthoplastic management likely results in more free flaps compared to nonorthoplastic management (RR: 3.46, 95% CI: 1.28–9.33, P = 0.01; participants = 592; studies = 5; I² = 75%; moderate certainty evidence).

Conclusion:

Orthoplastic management of traumatic lower extremity injuries provides a synergistic model to optimize and expedite definitive skeletal fixation and free flap-based soft-tissue coverage for return of extremity form and function.

Standards of open lower limb fracture care in the United Kingdom

Open fractures of the lower limb remain a potentially devastating group of injuries that are challenging to manage. The primary aims of treatment are to optimise limb function and avoid serious complications such as infection and non-union, which are costly for both the patient and healthcare system. The management of these fractures has evolved significantly, and this is evident following the creation of national open fracture guidelines and a formal trauma system. These have served to standardise care for these injuries in the United Kingdom. The aim of this review is to update our colleagues on the current standard of lower limb open fracture care in the United Kingdom, and the impact this has had on patient outcomes.

The impact of major trauma centre designation on routine orthopaedic trauma care

Introduction

Major Trauma networks were introduced in 2012 to improve care for patients with major traumatic injuries. Current evidence suggests that this has been successfully achieved, however, there are implications for ‘routine trauma care’ of patients who attend a major trauma centre.

Methods

We assessed time from injury to surgery in August to October in 2011 and 2019. We also assessed the National Hip Fracture Database outcomes for time to surgery for hip fracture patients.

Results

Average wait times for ankle surgery increased from 4.9 days (18 patients) in 2011 to 7.0 in days (26 patients) in 2019, whilst for distal radius fracture surgery increased from 3.9 days (36 patients) to 6.5 days (23 patients); the percentage of patients who received their hip fracture surgery within the recommended 36 hours was 53.7% in 2011 (322 patients) compared to 66.7% in 2019 (375 patients).

Conclusion

The wait times for ‘routine trauma care’ have increased since the introduction of the major trauma network. This is probably due to the large demand on major trauma centres presented by complex trauma patients. However, the number of patients undergoing hip fracture surgery within 36 hours has improved, probably driven by the NHS tariff for hip fracture care. Changes to the current major trauma system or an increase in resources are required to help reverse this trend.

Paediatric open tibial fractures. Do children require a modified approach to that advised by the British Orthopaedic Association and British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons in the UK?

This study reviews the outcomes of paediatric open tibial fractures treated at a level 1 trauma centre using the British Orthopaedic Association/British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons standards and compares the results to management in adults. This was a retrospective study of 60 consecutive cases over a 9-year period. The variables recorded include grade of injury, contamination and pattern of fracture. Other data recorded include time at which antibiotics were given, time to index surgery, type of skeletal fixation and time to definitive cover. Outcomes sought were infection rate, time to union, problems with union and any additional unplanned surgery. The mean time to administration of antibiotics was 3.4 h after injury with a range of 0.35-17 h. The mean time to debridement was 13.4 h (range 1-32 h, SD 7.7). The mean time to union was 4.3 months (range 1.3-15 months). There were five cases of deep infection (8.3%) and three cases of superficial infection (5%). There were no significant differences between timings of antibiotic administration, hours to debridement or days to definitive closure between those cases which became infected and those which did not. This retrospective review of a consecutive series of paediatric open tibial fractures shows a close parallel of outcomes to that from adult centres in the UK using the same standards of care. This strengthens the recommendation that, until the availability of data to suggest otherwise, open tibial fractures in children should follow the same recommendations as suggested for adults. The greater healing potential in children, seen in multiple examples of closed long bone fractures, appears to be attenuated in the higher grades of the open tibial fracture.

Principles of Orthoplastic Surgery for Lower Extremity Reconstruction: Why Is This Important?

BACKGROUND

 Regardless of the antecedent etiology, lower extremity salvage and reconstruction attempts to avoid amputation, restore limb function, and improve quality of life outcomes. This goal requires a treatment team well versed in neurovascular pathology, skeletal and soft tissue reconstruction, and physical rehabilitation.

METHODS

 A review was performed of historical milestones that lead to the development of orthoplastic extremity reconstruction, principles of current management and the evidence that supports an orthoplastic approach. Based on available evidence and expert opinion, the authors further sought to provide insight into the future of the field centered around the importance of a multidisciplinary management protocol.

RESULTS

 Historically, orthopaedic and plastic surgeons worked separately when faced with challenging reconstructive cases involving lower extremity skeletal and soft tissue reconstruction. With time, many embraced that their seemingly separate skill-sets and knowledge could be unified in a collaborative orthoplastic approach in order to offer patients the best possible chance for success. First coined by the senior author (LSL) in the early 1990s, the collaborative orthoplastic approach between orthopaedic and plastic surgeons in limb salvage for the past several decades has resulted in a unique field of reconstructive surgery. Benefits of the orthoplastic approach include decreased time to definitive skeletal stabilization/soft tissue coverage, length of hospital stay, post-operative complications, need for revision procedures and improved functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

 The orthoplastic approach to lower extremity reconstruction is a collaborative model of orthopaedic and plastic surgeons working together to expedite and optimize care of patients in need of lower extremity reconstruction. The implementation of protocols, systems, and centers that foster this approach leads to improve outcomes for these patients. We encourage centers to embrace the orthoplastic approach when considering limb salvage, as the decision to amputate is irreversible.

A Review on the Orthoplastic Approach to Lower Limb Reconstruction

Just as in the craft of carpentry, a stable foundation and framework are absolutely essential to the final function of a building, but no more important than the drywall, trim, and paint that make the building functional, durable, and livable. Reconstruction of the lower extremity is similar; the orthopaedic surgeon must obtain stable fixation of the damaged or diseased bone once a thorough debridement of nonviable bone is performed, while the plastic or orthopaedic soft tissue surgeon must provide vascularized, stable coverage. These two components are complementary and both contribute to the success or failure of functional limb restoration. The stability of bone repair will predict the ultimate functional status, while the vascularized envelope will enhance the biology of bone and soft tissue healing. When both components are properly attended to, the result is often a functional limb with an acceptable appearance. While a single surgeon need not perform both of these tasks (although some may choose to do so), the orthopaedic and plastic surgeon involved in this care must have a clear understanding of each other's role and their importance for a good outcome. This is what we call the orthoplastic approach to reconstructive surgery of the extremities, that is, the application of principles and practice of both specialties applied simultaneously to optimize the outcomes in limb reconstruction. In this review article, we discuss the history of orthoplastic surgery, the key elements of orthoplastic surgery, and thoughts on factors that lead to good outcomes through select cases.

Motorcyclists and pillion passengers with open lower-limb fractures: a study using TARN data 2007-2014

Introduction We aimed to identify population demographics of motorcyclists and pillion passengers with isolated open lower-limb fractures, to ascertain the impact of the revised 2009 British Orthopaedic Association/British Association of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons joint standards for the management of open fractures of the lower limb (BOAST 4), in terms of time to skeletal stabilisation and soft-tissue coverage, and to observe any impact on patient movement. Methods Retrospective cohort data was collected by the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN). A longitudinal analysis was performed between two timeframes in England (pre-and post-BOAST 4 revision): 2007-2009 and 2010-2014. Results A total of 1564 motorcyclists and 64 pillion passengers were identified. Of these, 93% (1521/1628) were male. The median age for males was 30.5 years and 36.7 years for females. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients who underwent skeletal stabilisation (49% vs 65%, P < 0.0001), the time from injury to skeletal stabilisation (7.33 hours vs 14.3 hours, P < 0.0001) and the proportion receiving soft-tissue coverage (26% vs 43%, P < 0.0001). There was no difference in the time from injury to soft-tissue coverage (62.3 hours vs 63.7 hours, P = 0.726). The number of patients taken directly to a major trauma centre (or its equivalent) increased between the two timeframes (12.5% vs, 41%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Since the 2009 BOAST 4 revision, there has been no difference in the time taken from injury to soft-tissue coverage but the time from injury to skeletal stabilisation is longer. There has also been an increase in patient movement to centres offering joint orthopaedic and plastic care.

Hospital Transfer of Open Tibial Fractures Requiring Microsurgical Reconstruction Negatively Impacts Clinical Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Open tibial fractures are orthopedic emergencies that may present with severe soft tissue damage. Free tissue transfer is often required when local tissues are insufficient and patients may require hospital transfer to tertiary care centers for this purpose. Although the negative impact of inter-facility transfer has been well demonstrated in trauma patients, less is known regarding transfers for lower extremity injury patients. This study investigates differences in outcomes based on transfer status after open tibial fracture.

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive open tibial fractures requiring free tissue transfer over a 13-year period (2001-2014) were retrospectively reviewed. Patients transferred from outside facilities were compared to non-transferred patients in regards to demographics, injury, surgical characteristics, and outcomes (mean follow-up of 2.5 years). Student t tests and chi square analysis were used to compare means and proportions, respectively.

RESULTS

One-half of patients were transferred from an outside hospital. Transferred and nontransferred patients were not significantly different in regard to age, sex, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, and Gustilo grade. There was no significant difference in the method of bony fixation or free flap used for soft tissue coverage. The time to wound vacuum-assisted closure placement was longer in transferred patients, though this difference was not found to be significant (2.4 vs 3.3 days, P = 0.55). Time to definitive bony fixation was delayed in the transfer group by 9 days (5.2 vs 14.1 days, P = 0.05) and to tissue coverage by 7 days (14.2 vs 20.9 days, P = 0.13). Rates of flap loss and amputation did not differ between the groups. However, transferred patients were more likely to develop osteomyelitis (risk ratio [RR], 3.0; P = 0.03), nonunion (RR, 5.0; P = 0.09), and require hardware removal (RR, 3.3; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Transferred and nontransferred patients were not significantly different in their demographics or presentation. However, an analysis of clinical outcomes showed that transfer was associated with increased rates of osteomyelitis, nonunion, and hardware removal. Although likely multifactorial, this study suggests that a delay to definitive fixation and soft tissue coverage contributes to the increased rate of complications and poorer prognosis.

Pre-hospital and emergency department management of pelvic fractures and major trauma centre status: Has practice changed?

Introduction

Pelvic fractures are indicative of high-energy injuries and carry a significant morbidity and mortality and pelvic binders are used to stabilise them in both the pre-hospital and emergency department setting. Our unit gained major trauma centre status in April 2012 as part of a national programme to centralise trauma care and improve outcomes. This study investigated whether major trauma centre status led to a change in workload and clinical practice at our centre.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with a pelvic fracture for the six-month periods before, after and at one-year following major trauma centre status designation. Data were retrospectively collected from electronic patient records and binder placement assessed using an accepted method. Patients with isolated pubic rami fractures were excluded.

Results

Overall, 6/16 (37.5%) pelvic fracture admissions had a binder placed pre-major trauma centre status, rising to 14/34 (41.2%) immediately post-major trauma centre status and 22/32 (68.8%) ( p = 0.025) one year later. Binders were positioned accurately in 4 patients (80%, one exclusion) pre-major trauma centre status, 12 (92.4%) post-major trauma centre status and 22 (100%) at one year. CT imaging was the initial imaging used in 9 (56.3%) patients pre-major trauma centre status, 29 (85.3%) ( p = 0.04) post-major trauma centre status and 27 (84.4%) at one year.

Discussion

Pelvic fracture admissions doubled following major trauma centre status. Computed tomography, as the initial imaging modality, increased significantly with major trauma centre status, likely a reflection of the increased resources made available with this change. Although binder application rates did not change immediately, a significant improvement was seen after one year, with binder accuracy increasing to 100%. This suggests that although changes in clinical practice often do not occur immediately, with the increased infrastructure and clinical exposure afforded through centralisation of trauma services, they will occur, ultimately leading to improvements in trauma patient care.

Experience of managing open fractures of the lower limb at a major trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

In April 2012 the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford became a major trauma centre (MTC). The British Orthopaedic Association and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons joint standards for the management of open fractures of the lower limb (BOAST 4) require system-wide changes in referral practice that may be facilitated by the MTC and its associated major trauma network.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2013 a multistep audit of compliance with BOAST 4 was conducted to assess referral patterns, timing of surgery and outcomes (surgical site infection rates), to determine changes following local intervention and the establishment of the MTC.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 50 patients had soft tissue cover for an open lower limb fracture and there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients receiving definitive fixation in our centre (p=0.036). The median time from injury to soft tissue cover fell from 6.0 days to 3.5 days (p=0.051) and the median time from definitive fixation to soft tissue cover fell from 5.0 days to 2.0 days (p=0.003). The deep infection rate fell from 27% to 8% (p=0.247). However, in 2013 many patients still experienced a delay of >72 hours between injury and soft tissue cover, primarily owing to a lack of capacity for providing soft tissue cover.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience may be relevant to other MTCs seeking to identify barriers to optimising the management of patients with these injuries.

The impact of a dedicated orthoplastic operating list on time to soft tissue coverage of open lower limb fractures

An observational study was conducted of 105 patients presenting with an open fracture of the tibia or ankle to determine the impact of a dedicated orthoplastic operating list on our management of these injuries over the time period January 2012 to July 2014. There were 51 patients before and 54 after the introduction of the orthoplastic list. Significant improvements were noted in our ability to deliver a service in line with national guidelines across all Gustilo-Anderson grades of injury. Among patients with the most severe grades of injury (Gustilo types IIIB and IIIC), there was a trend towards an improved time to first skeletal stabilisation (29.5 vs 14.2 hours, p=0.068), an improvement in time to soft tissue coverage (173.6 vs 88.1 hours, p=0.009) and a trend towards a reduced length of inpatient stay (32.6 vs 23.2 days, p=0.138). Where the 72-hour target had been breached, there was a significant improvement in the proportion of patients covered within 7 days of injury (48.2% vs 83.3%, p=0.017). Our compliance with national management standards increased significantly to reflect these improvements in care. These results support the implementation of dedicated orthoplastic operating sessions to meet the growing burden of patients presenting with open fractures at specialist centres.

From guidelines to standards of care for open tibial fractures

INTRODUCTION

The standards for the management of open fractures of the lower limb published by the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic surgeons (BAPRAS) and British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were introduced to improve the treatment received by patients after open injury to the lower limb. These Standards were released after BAPRAS/BOA published Guidelines for the management of open tibial fractures.

METHODS

We wished to determine the impact of these Standards upon the surgical management of open tibial fractures by comparing patients admitted to an orthoplastic centre in the 45 months concluding December 2009 (the Guidelines era) with those admitted during 2011 (the Standards era). Surgical procedures required during the first 30 days and 12 months after injury were determined. Cases were divided into 'directly admitted patients' (DAP) and 'transferred patients' (TP). Standards-era patients were divided further into those who had surgery exclusively at the orthoplastic centre (orthoplastic patients (OPP)) and those transferred after surgery (TASP).

RESULTS

The number of TP trebled in frequency in the Standards era, 25% of whom were transferred before surgery. Significantly fewer surgical procedures were required for DAP and OPP groups compared with TP (and TASP) groups in both eras (Mann-Whitney U-test, p=0.05). DAP and OPP groups during the Standards era underwent the fewest procedures, with the vast majority of cases treated with two or fewer procedures in the first 12 months (88% and 80%, respectively, compared with 61% in the Guidelines era). In the Guidelines era, 44% of TP cases and in the Standards era 39% of TP and 29% of TASP groups underwent two or fewer procedures. Approximately two-thirds of open tibial fractures managed in our orthoplastic centre were patients transferred after surgery. The greatest impact of the Standards was evident for those who underwent surgery exclusively in the orthoplastic centre, reflecting a more deliberate combined strategy.

CONCLUSION

These findings vindicate the Standards as well as mandating reorganisation and resourcing of orthoplastic services to ensure immediate transfer and early combined surgery. By increasing the capacity to deal with time-dependent initial surgery, the surgical burden that the patient must endure, and which the service must provide, are reduced.

Influence of access to an integrated trauma system on in-hospital mortality and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Few data are available on population-based access to specialised trauma care and its influence on patient outcomes in an integrated trauma system. We aimed to evaluate the influence of access to an integrate trauma system on in-hospital mortality and length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

All adults admitted to acute care hospitals for major trauma [International Classification of Diseases Injury Severity Score (ICISS<0.85)] in a Canadian province with an integrated trauma system between 2006 and 2011 were included using an administrative hospital discharge database. The influence of access to an integrated trauma system on in-hospital mortality and LOS was assessed globally and for critically injured patients (ICISS<0.75), according to the type of injury [traumatic brain injury (TBI), abdominal/thoracic, spine, orthopaedic] using logistic and linear multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 22,749 injury admissions. In-hospital mortality was 7% and median LOS was 9 days for all injuries. Overall, 92% of patients were treated within the trauma system. Globally, patients who did not have access had similar mortality and LOS compared to patients who had access. However, we observed a 62% reduction in mortality for critical abdominal/thoracic injuries (odds ratio=0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.92) and an 8% increase in LOS for TBI patients (geometric mean ratio=1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14) treated within the trauma system.

CONCLUSIONS

Results provides evidence that in a health system with an integrated mature trauma system, access to specialised trauma care is high and the small proportion of patients treated outside the system, have similar mortality and LOS compared to patients treated within the system. This study suggests that the Québec trauma system performs well in its mandate to offer appropriate treatment to victims of injury that require specialised care.

Effect of regional trauma centralization on volume, injury severity and outcomes of injured patients admitted to trauma centres

BACKGROUND

Centralization of complex healthcare services into specialist high-volume centres is believed to improve outcomes. For injured patients, few studies have evaluated the centralization of major trauma services. The aim of this study was to evaluate how a regional trauma network affected trends in admissions, case mix, and outcomes of injured patients.

METHODS

A retrospective before-after study was undertaken of severely injured patients attending four hospitals that became major trauma centres (MTCs) in March 2012. Consecutive patients with major trauma were identified from a national registry and divided into two groups according to injury before or after the launch of a new trauma network. The two cohorts were compared for differences in case mix, demand on hospital resources, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Patient volume increased from 442 to 1326 (200 per cent), operations from 349 to 1231 (253 per cent), critical care bed-days from 1100 to 3704 (237 per cent), and total hospital bed-days from 7910 to 22,772 (188 per cent). Patient age increased on MTC designation from 45.0  years before March 2012 to 48.2 years afterwards (P = 0.021), as did the proportion of penetrating injuries (1.8 versus 4.1 per cent; P = 0.025). Injury severity fell as measured by median Injury Severity Score (16 versus 14) and Revised Trauma Score (4.1 versus 7.8). Fewer patients required secondary transfer to a MTC from peripheral hospitals (19.9 versus 16.1 per cent; P = 0.100). There were no significant differences in total duration of hospital stay, critical care requirements or mortality. However, there was a significant increase, from 55.5 to 62.3 per cent (P < 0.001), in the proportion of patients coded as having a 'good recovery' at discharge after institution of the trauma network.

CONCLUSION

MTC designation leads to an increased case volume with considerable implications for operating theatre capacity and bed occupancy. Although no mortality benefit was demonstrated within 6 months of establishing this trauma network, early detectable advantages included improved functional outcome at discharge.