Telemedicine-Guided Two-Incision Lower Leg Fasciotomy Performed by Combat Medics During Tactical Combat Casualty Care:A Feasibility Study

IntroductionDuring tactical combat casualty care, life- and limb-saving procedures might also be performed by combat medics. This study assesses whether it is feasible to use a head-mounted display (HMD) to provide telemedicine (TM) support from a consulted senior surgeon for combat medics when performing a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy.Materials and MethodsNine combat medics were randomized into groups to perform a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy. One group used the Vuzix M400 and the second group used the RealWear HMT-1Z1. A third, control, group received no guidance. In the Vuzix M400 group and RealWear HMT-1Z1 group, a senior surgeon examined the results after the two-incision lower leg fasciotomy was finished to assess the release of compartments, possible collateral damage, and performance of the combat medics. In the control group, these results were examined by a surgical resident with expertise in two-incision lower leg fasciotomies. The resident’s operative performance questionnaire was used to score the performance of the combat medics. The telehealth usability questionnaire was used to evaluate the usability of the HMDs as perceived by the combat medics.ResultsCombat medics using an HMD were considered competent in performing a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy (Vuzix: median 3 [range 0], RealWear: median 3 [range 1]). These combat medics had a significantly better score in their ability to adapt to anatomical variances compared to the control group (Vuzix: median 3 [range 0], RealWear: median 3 [range 0], control: median 1 [range 0]; P = .018). Combat medics using an HMD were faster than combat medics in the control group (Vuzix: mean 14:14 [SD 3:41], RealWear: mean 15:42 [SD 1:58], control: mean 17:45 [SD 2:02]; P = .340). The overall satisfaction with both HMDs was 5 out of 7 (Vuzix: median 5 [range 0], RealWear: median 5 [range 1]; P = .317).ConclusionsThis study shows that it is feasible to use an HMD to provide TM support performance from a consulted senior surgeon for combat medics when performing a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy. The results of this study suggest that TM support might be useful for combat medics during tactical combat casualty care when performing life- and limb-saving procedures

Selective non-operative management for penetrating abdominal injury in a Dutch trauma centre

INTRODUCTION Selective non-operative management (SNOM) for penetrating abdominal injury (PAI) is accepted in trauma centres in South Africa and the US. Owing to the low incidence of gunshot wounds (GSWs) in Western Europe, few are inclined to practise SNOM for such injuries although it is considered for stab wounds (SWs). This study evaluated the outcome of patients admitted to a Dutch level 1 trauma centre with PAI. METHODS A retrospective study was undertaken of all PAI patients treated over 15 years. In order to prevent bias, patients admitted six months prior to and six months following implementation of a treatment algorithm were excluded. Data concerning type of injury, injury severity score and treatment were compared. RESULTS A total of 393 patients were included in the study: 278 (71%) with SWs and 115 (29%) with GSWs. Of the 178 SW patients in the SNOM group, 111 were treated before and 59 after introduction of the protocol. The SNOM success rates were 90% and 88% respectively (p=0.794). There were 43 patients with GSWs in the SNOM cohort. Of these, 32 were treated before and 11 after implementation of the algorithm, with respective success rates of 94% and 100% (p=0.304). The protocol did not bring about any significant change in the rate of non-therapeutic laparotomies for SWs or GSWs. However, the rate of admission for observation for SWs increased from 83% to 100% (p<0.001). There was a decrease in ultrasonography for SWs (from 84% to 32%, p<0.001) as well as for GSWs (from 87% to 43%, p<0.001). X-ray was also used less for GSWs after the protocol was introduced (44% vs 11%, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS SNOM for PAI resulting from either SWs or GSWs can be safely practised in Western European trauma centres. Results are comparable with those in trauma centres that treat high volumes of PAI cases

Challenges in the training of military surgeons: experiences from Dutch combat operations in southern Afghanistan

Vascular Surger

A systematic review of 3251 emergency department thoracotomies: is it time for a national database?

Purpose: Emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) is a potentially life-saving procedure, performed on patients suffering traumatic cardiac arrest. Multiple indications have been reported, but overall survival remains unclear for each indication. The objective of this systematic review is to determine overall survival, survival stratified by indication, and survival stratified by geographical location for patients undergoing EDT across the world. Methods: Articles published between 2000 and 2016 were identified which detailed outcomes from EDT. All articles referring to pre-hospital, delayed, or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated comparing differing indications. Results: Thirty-seven articles, containing 3251 patients who underwent EDT, were identified. There were 277 (8.5%) survivors. OR demonstrate improved survival for; penetrating vs blunt trauma (OR 2.10; p 0.0028); stab vs gun-shot (OR 5.45; p &lt; 0.0001); signs of life (SOL) on admission vs no SOL (OR 5.36; p &lt; 0.0001); and SOL in the field vs no SOL (OR 19.39; p &lt; 0.0001). Equivalence of survival was demonstrated between cardiothoracic vs non-cardiothoracic injury (OR 1.038; p 1.000). Survival was worse for USA vs non-USA cohorts (OR 1.59; p 0.0012). Conclusions: Penetrating injury remains a robust indication for EDT. Non-cardiothoracic cause of cardiac arrest should not preclude EDT. In the absence of on scene SOL, survival following EDT is extremely unlikely. Survival is significantly higher in the non-USA publications; reasons for this are highly complex. A UK multicentre prospective study which collects standardised data on all EDTs could provide robust evidence for better patient stratification.</p

Fixation using alternative implants for the treatment of hip fractures (FAITH): design and rationale for a multi-centre randomized trial comparing sliding hip screws and cancellous screws on revision surgery rates and quality of life in the treatment of femoral neck fractures

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are a common type of fragility fracture that afflict 293,000 Americans (over 5,000 per week) and 35,000 Canadians (over 670 per week) annually. Despite the large population impact the optimal fixation technique for low energy femoral neck fractures remains controversial. The primary objective of the FAITH study is to assess the impact of cancellous screw fixation versus sliding hip screws on rates of revision surgery at 24 months in individuals with femoral neck fractures. The secondary objective is to determine the impact on health-related quality of life, functional outcomes, health state utilities, fracture healing, mortality and fracture-related adverse events. METHODS/DESIGN: FAITH is a multi-centre, multi-national randomized controlled trial utilizing minimization to determine patient allocation. Surgeons in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia will recruit a total of at least 1,000 patients with low-energy femoral neck fractures. Using central randomization, patients will be allocated to receive surgical treatment with cancellous screws or a sliding hip screw. Patient outcomes will be assessed at one week (baseline), 10 weeks, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post initial fixation. We will independently adjudicate revision surgery and complications within 24 months of the initial fixation. Outcome analysis will be performed using a Cox proportional hazards model and likelihood ratio test. DISCUSSION: This study represents major international efforts to definitively resolve the treatment of low-energy femoral neck fractures. This trial will not only change current Orthopaedic practice, but will also set a benchmark for the conduct of future Orthopaedic trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The FAITH trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT00761813)