Rapid Orthotics for Cure Kenya: Mechanical Design and Modeling of 3D Printed Sockets

Rapid Orthotics for Cure Kenya (ROCK) works with CURE, a non-profit orthopedic workshop in Kjabe, Kenya, to implement a 3D printing system for manufacturing custom prosthetics and orthotics. The goal is to reduce the production time and cost for the current transtibial sockets being manufactured in the orthotic clinic to give the patients a way to integrate into society and reduce stigma from their communities. The team has developed a transtibial socket for below-the-knee amputees produced by a 3D printing system that converts a scan of the residual limb to a model that takes a third of the time to print versus the current manufacturing method. The current focus of the team is to develop a rigorous testing procedure adhering to the requirements set by the ISO 10328 Standard, an internationally recognized testing method. In order to ensure the safety of the sockets, tests must be run demonstrating that the product can withstand the different forces experienced during the gait cycle. Due to the complex geometry of the applied forces outlined in the ISO 10328, the team has designed a novel testing rig that interfaces with the MTS machine at Messiah University to apply the necessary forces according to the geometry outlined in the standard. Additionally, computer-based simulations are being developed in SolidWorks, a 3D modeling software, to determine how the components will behave under certain loading conditions. This is done to ensure accordance with the 10328 Standard and will be critical in the future for developing necessary cyclic tests.https://mosaic.messiah.edu/engr2021/1013/thumbnail.jp

Outcomes in patients with gunshot wounds to the brain.

Introduction:Gunshot wounds to the brain (GSWB) confer high lethality and uncertain recovery. It is unclear which patients benefit from aggressive resuscitation, and furthermore whether patients with GSWB undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) have potential for survival or organ donation. Therefore, we sought to determine the rates of survival and organ donation, as well as identify factors associated with both outcomes in patients with GSWB undergoing CPR. Methods:We performed a retrospective, multicenter study at 25 US trauma centers including dates between June 1, 2011 and December 31, 2017. Patients were included if they suffered isolated GSWB and required CPR at a referring hospital, in the field, or in the trauma resuscitation room. Patients were excluded for significant torso or extremity injuries, or if pregnant. Binomial regression models were used to determine predictors of survival/organ donation. Results:825 patients met study criteria; the majority were male (87.6%) with a mean age of 36.5 years. Most (67%) underwent CPR in the field and 2.1% (n=17) survived to discharge. Of the non-survivors, 17.5% (n=141) were considered eligible donors, with a donation rate of 58.9% (n=83) in this group. Regression models found several predictors of survival. Hormone replacement was predictive of both survival and organ donation. Conclusion:We found that GSWB requiring CPR during trauma resuscitation was associated with a 2.1% survival rate and overall organ donation rate of 10.3%. Several factors appear to be favorably associated with survival, although predictions are uncertain due to the low number of survivors in this patient population. Hormone replacement was predictive of both survival and organ donation. These results are a starting point for determining appropriate treatment algorithms for this devastating clinical condition. Level of evidence:Level II

Surgical Management Of Pancreatic Necrosis: A Practice Management Guideline From The Eastern Association For The Surgery Of Trauma

Background: Pancreatic or peripancreatic tissue necrosis confers substantial morbidity and mortality. New modalities have created a wide variation in approaches and timing of interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. As acute care surgery evolves, its practitioners are increasingly being called upon to manage these complex patients. Methods: A systematic review of the MEDLINE database using PubMed was performed. English language articles regarding pancreatic necrosis from 1980 to 2014 were included. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. Topics of investigation included operative timing, the use of adjuvant therapy and the type of operative repair. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was applied to question development, outcome prioritization, evidence quality assessments, and recommendation creation. Results: Eighty-eight studies were included and underwent full review. Increasing the time to surgical intervention had an improved outcome in each of the periods evaluated (72 hours, 12-14 days, 30 days) with a significant improvement in outcomes if surgery was delayed 30 days. The use of percutaneous and endoscopic procedures was shown to postpone surgery and potentially be definitive. The use of minimally invasive surgery for debridement and drainage has been shown to be safe and associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Conclusion: Acute Care Surgeons are uniquely trained to care for those with pancreatic necrosis due their training in critical care and complex surgery with ongoing shock. In adult patients with pancreatic necrosis, we recommend that pancreatic necrosectomy be delayed until at least day 12. During the first 30 days of symptoms with infected necrotic collections, we conditionally recommend surgical debridement only if the patients fail to improve after radiologic or endoscopic drainage. Finally, even with documented infected necrosis, we recommend that patients undergo a step-up approach to surgical intervention as the preferred surgical approach. Level of Evidence Systematic review/guideline, level III

Does routine postoperative contrast radiography improve outcomes for patients with perforated peptic ulcer? A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Perforated peptic ulcer is a morbid emergency general surgery condition. Best practices for postoperative care remain undefined. Surgical dogma preaches practices such as peritoneal drain placement, prolonged nil per os, and routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging despite a lack of evidence. We aimed to evaluate the role of postoperative enteral contrast imaging in postoperative perforated peptic ulcer care. Our primary objective was to assess effects of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging on early detection of clinically significant leaks. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer between July 2016 and June 2018. We compared outcomes between those who underwent routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging and those who did not. RESULTS: Our analysis included 95 patients who underwent primary/omental patch repair. The mean age was 60 years, and 54% were male. Thirteen (14%) had a leak. Eighty percent of patients had a drain placed. Nine patients had leaks diagnosed based on bilious drain output without routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging. Use of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging varied significantly between institutions (30%-87%). Two late leaks after initial normal postoperative enteral contrast imaging were confirmed by imaging after a clinical change triggered the second study. Two patients had contained leaks identified by routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging but remained clinically well. Duration of hospital stay was longer in those who received routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging (12 vs 6 days, median; P = .000). CONCLUSION: Routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging after perforated peptic ulcer repair likely does not improve the detection of clinically significant leaks and is associated with increased duration of hospital stay

Empiric antifungals do not decrease the risk for organ space infection in patients with perforated peptic ulcer

Introduction Infection control in patients with perforated peptic ulcers (PPU) commonly includes empiric antifungals (AF). We investigated the variation in the use of empiric AF and explored the association between their use and the subsequent development of organ space infection (OSI).Methods This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, case–control study of patients treated for PPU at nine institutions between 2011 and 2018. Microbiology and utilization of empiric AF, defined as AF administered within 24 hours from the index surgery, were recorded. Patients who received empiric AF were compared with those who did not. The primary outcome was OSI and secondary outcome was OSI with growth of Candida spp. A logistic regression was used to adjust for differences between the two cohorts.Results A total of 554 patients underwent a surgical procedure for PPU and had available timing of AF administration. The median age was 57 years and 61% were male. Laparoscopy was used in 24% and omental patch was the most common procedure performed (78%). Overall, 239 (43%) received empiric AF. There was a large variation in the use of empiric AF among participating centers, ranging from 25% to 68%. The overall incidence of OSI was 14% (77/554) and was similar for patients who did or did not receive empiric AF. The adjusted OR for development of OSI for patients who received empiric AF was 1.04 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.70), adjusted p=0.86. The overall incidence of OSI with growth of Candida spp was 5% and was similar for both groups (adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.84, adjusted p=0.53).Conclusion For patients undergoing surgery for PPU, the use of empiric AF did not yield any significant clinical advantage in preventing OSI, even those due to Candida spp. Use of empiric AF in this setting is unnecessary.Study type Original article, case series.Level of evidence III

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on injury prevalence and pattern in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region: a multicenter study by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, Washington, DC

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching effects on healthcare systems and society with resultant impact on trauma systems worldwide. This study evaluates the impact the pandemic has had in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region as compared with similar months in 2019.Design A retrospective multicenter study of all adult trauma centers in the Washington, DC region was conducted using trauma registry data between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2020. March 1, 2020 through May 31, 2020 was defined as COVID-19, and January 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 was defined as pre-COVID-19. Variables examined include number of trauma contacts, trauma admissions, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, trauma center location (urban vs. suburban), and patient demographics.Results There was a 22.4% decrease in the overall incidence of trauma during COVID-19 compared with a 3.4% increase in trauma during pre-COVID-19. Blunt mechanism of injury decreased significantly during COVID-19 (77.4% vs. 84.9%, p<0.001). There was no change in the specific mechanisms of fall from standing, blunt assault, and motor vehicle crash. The proportion of trauma evaluations for penetrating trauma increased significantly during COVID-19 (22.6% vs. 15.1%, p<0.001). Firearm-related and stabbing injury mechanisms both increased significantly during COVID-19 (11.8% vs. 6.8%, p<0.001; 9.2%, 6.9%, p=0.002, respectively).Conclusions and relevance The overall incidence of trauma has decreased since the arrival of COVID-19. However, there has been a significant rise in penetrating trauma. Preparation for future pandemic response should include planning for an increase in trauma center resource utilization from penetrating trauma.Level of evidence Epidemiological, level III

Validation of a Geriatric Trauma Prognosis Calculator: A P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. Consortium Study

Background/objectives: The P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. (prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly) consortium has previously created a prognosis calculator for mortality after geriatric injury based on age, injury severity, and transfusion requirement called the geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS). Here, we sought to create and validate a prognosis calculator called the geriatric trauma outcome score ii (GTOS II) estimating probability of unfavorable discharge. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers. Participants: Trauma admissions aged 65 to 102 years surviving to discharge from 2000 to 2013. Intervention: None. Measurements: Age, injury severity score (ISS), transfusion at 24 hours post-admission, discharge dichotomized as favorable (home/rehabilitation) or unfavorable (skilled nursing/long term acute care/hospice). Training and testing samples were created using the holdout method. A multiple logistic mixed model (GTOS II) was created to estimate the odds of unfavorable disposition then re-specified using the GTOS II as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model using the testing sample. Results: The final dataset was 16,114 subjects (unfavorable discharge status = 15.4%). Training (n = 8,057) and testing (n = 8,057) samples had similar demographics. The formula based on the training sample was (GTOS II = Age + [0.71 × ISS] + 8.79 [if transfused by 24 hours]). Misclassification rate and AUC were 15.63% and 0.67 for the training sample, respectively, and 15.85% and 0.67 for the testing sample. Conclusion: GTOS II estimates the probability of unfavorable discharge in injured elders with moderate accuracy. With the GTOS mortality calculator, it can help in goal setting conversations after geriatric injury

Validation of a Geriatric Trauma Prognosis Calculator: A P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. Consortium Study

Background/objectives: The P.A.L.Li.A.T.E. (prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly) consortium has previously created a prognosis calculator for mortality after geriatric injury based on age, injury severity, and transfusion requirement called the geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS). Here, we sought to create and validate a prognosis calculator called the geriatric trauma outcome score ii (GTOS II) estimating probability of unfavorable discharge. Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers. Participants: Trauma admissions aged 65 to 102 years surviving to discharge from 2000 to 2013. Intervention: None. Measurements: Age, injury severity score (ISS), transfusion at 24 hours post-admission, discharge dichotomized as favorable (home/rehabilitation) or unfavorable (skilled nursing/long term acute care/hospice). Training and testing samples were created using the holdout method. A multiple logistic mixed model (GTOS II) was created to estimate the odds of unfavorable disposition then re-specified using the GTOS II as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model using the testing sample. Results: The final dataset was 16,114 subjects (unfavorable discharge status = 15.4%). Training (n = 8,057) and testing (n = 8,057) samples had similar demographics. The formula based on the training sample was (GTOS II = Age + [0.71 × ISS] + 8.79 [if transfused by 24 hours]). Misclassification rate and AUC were 15.63% and 0.67 for the training sample, respectively, and 15.85% and 0.67 for the testing sample. Conclusion: GTOS II estimates the probability of unfavorable discharge in injured elders with moderate accuracy. With the GTOS mortality calculator, it can help in goal setting conversations after geriatric injury