3D printing feasibility of a controlled dynamization device for external circular fixation.

AIM: to assess the small-scale 3D printing feasibility and cost estimation of a device for controlled dynamization. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The two-part device previously developed by our research group was printed with a carbon fiber-reinforced nylon filament (Gen3 CarbonX™ PA6+CF, 3DXTECH Additive Manufacturing) by a professional 3D printer (FUNMAT HT, Intamsys). Electricity, material, and labor costs for production in a Brazilian city in the Santa Catarina state were calculated. RESULTS: The devices for controlled dynamization were successfully printed in accordance with the planned design and dimensions. Six out of 38 printed devices presented defects in the bolt hole and were discarded. The average printing time per device was 1.9 h. The average electricity, material, and labor costs per printed device were respectively US$0.71, US$13.55, and US$3.04. The total production cost per device reaches approximately US$20 by adding the average cost of defective devices (15 %). CONCLUSION: 3D printing of the controlled dynamization device is feasible and its cost seems affordable to most healthcare services, which could optimize the consolidation of diaphyseal fractures and reduce treatment time for patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Volar Locking Plate Compared with Augmented External Fixation for Displaced Intra-Articular Wrist Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treating displaced, intra-articular distal radial fractures with volar locking plate fixation compared with augmented external fixation. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a randomized, clinical trial comparing 2 surgical interventions for intra-articular distal radial fractures. One hundred and sixty-six patients were allocated to either volar locking plate fixation (84 patients) or external fixation (82 patients) and were followed for 2 years. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and was used to calculate patients' quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Resource use was identified prospectively at the patient level at all follow-up intervals. Costs were estimated with use of both a health-care perspective and a societal perspective. Results were expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and uncertainty was assessed with use of bootstrapping methods. RESULTS: The average QALY value was equivalent between the groups (1.70463 for the volar locking plate group and 1.70726 for the external fixation group, yielding a nonsignificant difference of -0.00263 QALY). Health-care costs were equal between the groups, with a nonsignificant difference of &OV0556;52 (p = 0.8) in favor of external fixation. However, the external fixation group had a higher loss of productivity due to absence from work (5.5 weeks in the volar locking plate group compared with 9.2 weeks for the external fixation group; p = 0.02). Consequently, the societal costs were higher for the external fixation group compared with the volar locking plate group (&OV0556;18,037 compared with &OV0556;12,567, representing a difference of &OV0556;5,470; p = 0.04) in favor of the volar locking plate group. Uncertainty analyses showed that there is indifference regarding which method to recommend from a health-care perspective, with volar locking plate treatment and external fixation having a 47% and 53% likelihood of being cost-effective, respectively. From the societal perspective, volar locking plate treatment had a 90% likelihood of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: External fixation was less cost-effective than volar locking plate treatment for distal radial fractures from a societal perspective, primarily because patients managed with external fixation had a longer absence from work. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Biomechanical study of a low-cost external fixator for diaphyseal fractures of long bones.

BACKGROUND: External fixation improves open fracture management in emerging countries. However, sophisticated models are often expensive and unavailable. We assessed the biomechanical properties of a low-cost external fixation system in comparison with the Hoffmann® 3 system, as a reference. METHODS: Transversal, oblique, and comminuted fractures were created in the diaphysis of tibia sawbones. Six external fixators were tested in three modes of loading-axial compression, medio-lateral (ML) bending, and torsion-in order to determine construction stiffness. The fixator construct implies two uniplanar (UUEF1, UUEF2) depending the pin-rods fixation system and two biplanar (UBEF1, UBEF2) designs based on different bar to bar connections. The designed low-cost fixators were compared to a Hoffmann® 3 fixator single rod (H3-SR) and double rod (H3-DR). Twenty-seven constructs were stabilized with UUEF1, UUEF2, and H3-SR (nine constructs each). Nine constructs were stabilized with UBEF1, UBEF2, and H3-DR (three constructs each). RESULTS: UUEF2 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p < 0.001) in axial compression for oblique fractures and UUEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-SR (p = 0.009) in ML bending for transversal fractures. Both UUEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-SR in axial compression and torsion (p < 0.05), and inferior to H3-SR in ML bending, for comminuted fractures. In the same fracture pattern, UBEFs were significantly stiffer than H3-DR (p = 0.001) in axial compression and torsion, while only UBEF1 was significantly stiffer than H3-DR in ML bending (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrated that the stiffness of the UUEF and UBEF device compares to the reference fixator and may be helpful in maintaining fracture reduction. Fatigue testing and clinical assessment must be conducted to ensure that the objective of bone healing is achievable with such low-cost devices.

Health Care Costs of Post-traumatic Osteomyelitis in China: Current Situation and Influencing Factors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, very limited information is available regarding the economic burdens of patients with extremity post-traumatic osteomyelitis (OM). This study aimed to investigate direct health care costs and utilization for inpatients with extremity post-traumatic OM and analyze its constituent ratios and influencing factors in Southern China. METHODS: We searched in the electronic medical record system for inpatients who had received surgical interventions at our department between 2013 and 2016 for extremity post-traumatic OM. Data of direct health care costs incurred during their hospitalizations were collected in six main categories (service, diagnosis, treatment, materials, pharmaceuticals, and miscellaneous expenses). In addition, data of total medical costs for contemporaneous inpatients with non-post-traumatic OM were also collected as controls. RESULTS: A total of 278 post-traumatic OM and 10,420 controls were included. The median cost for the post-traumatic OM inpatients was $10,504 US dollars, 4.8-fold higher than that for those with non-post-traumatic OM ($2189, P < 0.001). The direct cost in the category of materials accounted for the largest proportion (61%), followed by that in pharmaceuticals (12%) and treatment (11%). The median number of hospital admissions for post-traumatic OM patients was 1 time, with a median length-of-stay of 22 d. The most influencing factors for the health care costs of the post-traumatic OM inpatients were use of an external fixator ($16,016 for those who used versus $4956 for those who did not, P < 0.001), external fixator type ($19,563 for ring fixator versus $14,966 for rail fixator, P < 0.001), infection site ($13,755 for tibia, $14,216 for femur and $5673 for calcaneus, P < 0.001), and infection-associated injury type ($12,890 for infection after open fracture versus $8087 for infection after closed fracture, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An unexpectedly large proportion of the direct health care costs for inpatients with extremity post-traumatic OM went to cover an external fixator, with expenses for pharmaceuticals and treatment accounting for only a little more than the tenth of the total health care costs. Use of external fixator, external fixator type, infection site, and infection-associated injury type directly influenced the health care costs.

Cost Variation in Temporizing External Fixation of Tibial Plateau Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Rising health care expenditures and declining reimbursements have generated interest in providing interventions of value. The use of external fixation is a commonly used intermediate procedure for the staged treatment of unstable fractures. External fixator constructs can vary in design and costs based on selected component configuration. The objective of this study was to evaluate cost variation and relationships to injury and noninjury characteristics in temporizing external fixation of tibial plateau fractures. We hypothesize that construct costs are highly variable and present no noticeable patterns with both injury and noninjury characteristics. METHODS: A retrospective review of tibial plateau fractures treated with initial temporizing external fixation between 2010 and 2016 at 2 Level I trauma centers was conducted. Fracture and patient characteristics including age, body mass index, AO/OTA classification, and Schatzker fracture classification were observed with construct cost. In addition, injury-independent characteristics of surgeon education, site of procedure, and date of procedure were evaluated with construct cost. Factors associated with cost variation were assessed using nonparametric comparative and goodness-of-fit regression tests. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one patient cases were reviewed. The mean knee spanning fixator construct cost was $4947 (95% confidence interval = $4742-$5152). The overall range in construct costs was from $1848 to $11,568. The mean duration of use was 16.4 days. No strong correlations were noted between construct cost and patient demographics (r = 0.02), fracture characteristics (r = 0.02), or injury-independent characteristics (r = 0.10). Finally, there was no significant difference between constructs of traumatologists and other orthopaedic surgeon subspecialists (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Temporizing external fixation of tibial plateau is a high-cost intervention per unit of time and exhibits massive variation in the mean cost. This presents an ideal opportunity for cost savings by reducing excessive variation in implant component selection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Retrospective Cohort.

Cost of Surgical Treatment for Distal Radius Fractures and the Implications of Episode-Based Bundled Payments.

PURPOSE: To examine the cost of care of surgical treatment for a distal radius fracture (DRF) and develop episodes that may be used to develop future bundled payment programs. METHODS: Using 2009 to 2015 claims data from the Truven MarketScan Databases, we examined the cost of care for surgical treatment of DRFs among adult patients in the United States. We excluded patients with concurrent fractures, patients who required complex care, and patients in assisted living facilities. We extracted data on cost and type of services provided to eligible patients, tracking patients from 3 days prior to operation to 90 days after operation. From these data, we developed 4 episode-of-care scenarios to develop an estimated bundled payment. We computed the variation in cost between surgery types, time periods, and type of service provided. RESULTS: Our final sample included 23,453 DRF operations, of which 15% were performed on patients 65 years of age or older. The majority (88%) underwent open fixation, the option associated with the highest cost. The average cost of care for a DRF patient ranged from $6,577 to $8,181 depending on the definition of an episode-of-care. Regardless of definition, the variation in cost was high. The cost of surgery itself composed 61% to 91% of the total cost of an episode. Of claims not directly related to the surgery, anesthesia and drugs, imaging, and therapy costs composed the next greatest proportions of the total cost of care. CONCLUSIONS: Many DRF surgical episodes incur substantially higher costs than the average. To maximize cost reduction, bundled payments for DRFs are best designed with a clinically narrow definition that is limited to services related to the fracture and long enough to capture relevant postoperative therapy and imaging costs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides insight on spending to lay the foundation for shifting reimbursement strategies.

Damage Control Plating in Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: A Cheaper and Equally Effective Alternative to Spanning External Fixation.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate damage control plating (DCP) as an alternative to external fixation (EF) in the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures. Through retrospective analysis, the study found 445 patients who underwent operative fixation for tibial shaft fractures from 2008 to 2012. Twenty patients received DCP or EF before intramedullary nailing with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. Charts and radiographs were reviewed for postoperative complications. Hospital charges were reviewed for implant costs. Nine patients (45%) with DCP and 11 patients (55%) with EF were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the complication rates. The mean implant cost of DCP was $1028, whereas mean EF construct cost was $4204. Therefore, DCP resulted in significant cost savings with no difference in complication rates, making it a valuable alternative to EF for the provisional stabilization of open tibial shaft fractures.

A Prospective Randomized Trial to Assess Fixation Strategies for Severe Open Tibia Fractures: Modern Ring External Fixators Versus Internal Fixation (FIXIT Study).

The treatment of high-energy open tibia fractures is challenging in both the military and civilian environments. Treatment with modern ring external fixation may reduce complications common in these patients. However, no study has rigorously compared outcomes of modern ring external fixation with commonly used internal fixation approaches. The FIXIT study is a prospective, multicenter randomized trial comparing 1-year outcomes after treatment of severe open tibial shaft fractures with modern external ring fixation versus internal fixation among men and women of ages 18-64. The primary outcome is rehospitalization for major limb complications. Secondary outcomes include infection, fracture healing, limb function, and patient-reported outcomes including physical function and pain. One-year treatment costs and patient satisfaction will be compared between the 2 groups, and the percentage of Gustilo IIIB fractures that can be salvaged without soft tissue flap among patients receiving external fixation will be estimated.

Biomechanical and Cost Comparisons of Near-Far and Pin-Bar Constructs.

Orthopedic dogma states that external fixator stiffness is improved by placing 1 pin close to the fracture and 1 as distant as possible ("near-far"). This fixator construct is thought to be less expensive than placing pins a shorter distance apart and using "pin-bar" clamps that attach pins to outriggers. The authors therefore hypothesized that the near-far construct is stiffer and less expensive. They compared mechanical stiffness and costs of near-far and pin-bar constructs commonly used for temporary external fixation of femoral shaft fractures. Their testing model simulated femoral shaft fractures in damage control situations. Fourth-generation synthetic femora (n=18) were used. The near-far construct had 2 pins that were 106 mm apart, placed 25 mm from the gap on each side of the fracture. The pin-bar construct pins were 55 mm apart, placed 40 mm from the gap. Mechanical testing was performed on a material test system machine. Stiffness was determined in the linear portion of the load-displacement curve for both constructs in 4 modes: axial compression, torsional loading, frontal plane 3-point bending, and sagittal plane 3-point bending. Costs were determined from a 2012 price guide. Compared with the near-far construct, the pin-bar construct had stiffness increased by 58% in axial compression (P<.05) and by 52% in torsional loading (P<.05). The pin-bar construct increased cost by 11%. In contrast to the authors' hypothesis and existing orthopedic dogma, the near-far construct was less stiff than the pin-bar construct and was similarly priced. Use of the pin-bar construct is mechanically and economically reasonable. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):e238-e241.].

Staged Columnar Fixation of Bicondylar Tibial Plateaus: A Cheaper Alternative to External Fixation.

The objective of this study was to compare complication rates and costs of staged columnar fixation (SCF) to external fixation for bicondylar tibial plateau fractures. Patients who received SCF or temporary external fixation across a 3-year period at a major level I trauma center underwent a retrospective chart review for associated complications. Fisher's exact analysis was used to determine any statistical difference in complication rates between both groups. However, there was no significant difference in complication rates between the SCF and external fixator groups. Average medial plate costs for SCF were $2131 compared with an average external fixator cost of $4070 (p < .0001). Given that all patients with external fixation undergo eventual medial and lateral plating, savings with SCF include $4070 plus operative costs for removing the fixator. As our health care system focuses on cost-cutting efforts, orthopaedic trauma surgeons must explore cheaper and equally effective treatment alternatives.

Damage control orthopaedics: Variability of construct design for external fixation of the lower extremity and implications on cost.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate relative cost of external fixator constructs applied for damage control purposes in a cohort of advanced orthopaedic trainees and orthopaedic staff traumatologists. We also sought to evaluate physicians' understanding of component cost. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were asked to apply an external fixator for three separate fracture patterns in damage control fashion. A total of 19 physicians (nine PGY-4 residents, five PGY-5 residents, two orthopaedic trauma fellows and three orthopaedic staff traumatologists) participated. Total construct cost was calculated. Participants provided an estimate of the cost of each component in a fill-in format survey. Main outcome measures included cost of external fixator construct applied and the estimated cost of external fixator components. RESULTS: Average whole sale cost of an external fixator construct was $5252 (±$1798). Of the three fracture types examined, the tibial plafond fracture external fixator construct on average cost the most, followed by the tibial plateau fracture and the femur fracture construct. The large ex-fix combination clamp was the major contributor to cost for each construct. The combination clamp may be substituted for a multi-pin clamp, resulting in significant cost savings. The self-drilling Schanz pin and the large ex-fix combination clamp were most highly underestimated (25% and 22% of their actual cost, respectively). CONCLUSION: Innumerous construct designs exist and even small changes can significantly impact cost. Knowledge of component cost is low among staff and trainees. Education of component cost is vital to allow adequate consideration of construct design prior to fixator application.

Bar diameter is an important component of knee-spanning external fixator stiffness and cost.

The authors' objective was to determine the effects of bar diameter on the stiffness and cost of a knee-spanning external fixator. The authors studied 2 versions of an external fixator with a difference in bar diameter (small bars, 8-mm diameter; large bars, 11-mm diameter). Fixators were tested using frame dimensions and a synthetic fracture model appropriate for a tibial plateau fracture. Five configurations of each fixator were tested: standard, cross-link, oblique pin, double stack, and super construct. The construct stiffness of each configuration (n=60) was measured in anterior-posterior bending, medial-lateral bending, axial torsion, and axial compression. Cost analysis allowed for calculation of the stiffness per unit cost. In the large bar group, an increase in construct stiffness was noted for all constructs and testing modes. Magnitude of stiffness increase ranged from 24% to 224% (P<.05 in all cases), depending on the configuration and loading mode. Increase in stiffness was so large that double-stack small bars performed similarly to standard construct large bars. Considering that the frame components have similar costs, the double-stack small bar fixator results in a 66% increase in cost for the same stiffness provided by the standard large bar. Bar diameter seems to have a large effect on knee-spanning external fixators. The authors observed an increase in stiffness of up to 191% under anterior-posterior bending despite an increase in bar size of only 37.5%. This finding might allow clinicians to use less expensive frames constructed of larger bars without sacrificing construct stiffness.

Analysis of usage and associated cost of external fixators at an urban level 1 trauma centre.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the usage, indication, duration, and cost associated with external fixation usage. Additionally, to show the significant cost associated with external fixator use and reinvigorate discussions on external fixator reuse. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A retrospective review of a prospectively gathered trauma database was undertaken to identify all patients treated with external fixation frames for pelvic and lower extremity injuries between September 2007 and July 2010. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We noted the indications for frame use, and we determined the average duration of external fixation for each indication. The cost of each frame was calculated from implant records. RESULTS: 341 lower extremity and pelvic fractures were treated with external fixation frames during the study period. Of these, 92% were used as temporary external fixation. The average duration of temporary external fixation was 10.5 days. The cost of external fixation frame components was $670,805 per year. The average cost per external fixation frame was $5900. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of external fixators are intended as temporary frames, in place for a limited period of time prior to definitive fixation of skeletal injuries. As such, most frames are not intended to withstand physiologic loads, nor are they expected provide a precise maintenance of reduction. Given the considerable expense associated with external fixation frame components, the practice of purchasing external fixation frame components as disposable "single-use" items appears to be somewhat wasteful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Analysis of strategies to increase external fixator stiffness: is double stacking worth the cost?

We compared the mechanical benefits and costs of 3 strategies that are commonly used to increase knee-spanning external fixator stiffness (resistance to deformation): double stacking, cross-linking, and use of an oblique pin. At our academic trauma centre and biomechanical testing laboratory, we used ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene bone models and commercially available external fixator components to simulate knee-spanning external fixation. The models were tested in anterior-posterior bending, medial-lateral bending, axial compression, and torsion. We recorded the construct stiffness for each strategy in all loading modes and assessed a secondary outcome of cost per 10% increase in stiffness. Double stacking significantly increased construct stiffness under anterior-posterior bending (109%), medial-lateral bending (22%), axial compression (150%), and torsion (41%) (p<0.05). Use of an oblique pin significantly increased stiffness under torsion (25%) (p<0.006). Cross-linking significantly increased stiffness only under torsion (29%) (p<0.002). Double stacking increased costs by 84%, cross-linking by 28%, and use of an oblique pin by 15% relative to a standard fixator. All 3 strategies increased stiffness under torsion to varying degrees, but only double stacking increased stiffness in all 4 testing modalities (p<0.05). Double stacking is most effective in increasing resistance to bending, particularly under anterior-posterior bending and axial compression, but requires a relatively high cost increase. Clinicians can use these data to help guide the most cost-effective strategy to increase construct stiffness based on the plane in which stiffness is needed.

A novel external fixator of the hand: a practice pearl.

External fixation of comminuted hand fractures, especially those associated with soft-tissue injuries, is a good option and avoids several complications resulting from open surgery. Therefore, many versions of mini external fixators have been developed, including commercially fabricated implants and hand-made implants. However, these devices are costly or associated with serious complications. Through this study we have introduced a cost-effective and easy-to-apply mini external fixator.

A mini external fixator for hand and finger fractures constructed from readily available materials.

Phalangeal and metacarpal fractures with severe comminution and/or soft tissue compromise can present a challenge for the orthopedic surgeon. Maintaining viability of the soft tissues while providing rigid fixation of bony injuries is the goal when treating these injuries. Commercially available mini external fixators can help to achieve these goals. However, these devices are costly and are not always available when the surgeon needs them. In this technique study, we discuss the implementation of a mini external fixator using readily available implements in the operating room that is efficient, cost effective, and easy to apply.

Reuse of external fixation components: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: External fixation devices are sold in the United States as single-use devices and can be costly. Approved processes for refurbishment of nonimplantable components are available. We evaluated one such program for safety, efficacy, and fiscal ramifications. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial SETTING: Single center, Level I trauma center PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: During the 30-month enrollment period (November 16, 2001 to May 16, 2004), 41 patients (13%) of 315 patients were not able to consent and were excluded. A total of 178 (65%) of the 274 eligible patients who were offered entry into a randomized trial of new versus refurbished external fixation components for their injury refused to participate, leaving 96 (35%) of the 274 eligible patients entered into the study. INTERVENTION: Consented patients were entered into a trial of new versus refurbished nonimplantable external fixation components for their injury (all pins were new). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The frames were evaluated at the time of removal for efficacy and the complications of pin tract infections, loss of fixation, or loosening of components. RESULTS: A total of 48 distal radius fractures, 29 pilon fractures, and 19 tibial plateau fractures were entered into the study. With the 96 fractures treated in our study (50 new frames, 46 reused frames), we found no statistical differences in the incidence of pin tract infections (46% versus 52%, P=0.32), loss of fixation (4% versus 4%, P=0.70), or loosening of the components (1% versus 1%, P=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Sixty-five percent of consentable patients did not wish to have an external fixation frame with refurbished clamps. Our study demonstrated that this type of program is safe and effective with an actual cost savings of $65,452. The potential savings of such a program is 25% of the cost of all new frames.

The economic impact of reprocessing external fixation components.

BACKGROUND: The trend toward temporizing external fixation of complex fractures has resulted in increased expenditures for these devices. Increasing pressure to reduce health-care expenditures has led to exploration of reuse of equipment intended for single use. Devices must be tested and recertified prior to redeployment in hospital stock. We report the rate of manufacturer recertification and institutional cost savings associated with a reuse program approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: All Hoffmann-II external fixation components that had been removed at our institution during the study period were submitted to the manufacturer for visual inspection and mechanical testing. Pass rates for original components and previously recycled components were determined. With use of a conservative pass rate and the assumption of a maximum of three recertifications of each component, the total potential hospital savings on external fixation were calculated. RESULTS: The first pass rate was 76%. The second pass rate (i.e., the rate for components that had already been recertified once and had been sent for a second recertification) was 83%, but that rate was derived from a limited sample. On the basis of a conservative pass-rate estimate of 75%, the predicted average number of uses of a recyclable component was 2.7. The recertified components were sold back to our hospital at 50% of the original price. Because carbon-fiber bars and half-pins are not recycled, 85% of the charges expended on a new external fixation component are spent on portions of the system that are recyclable. The potential total savings on reusable components was found to be 32%, with a total savings of 27% for the whole external fixation system. No recertified components failed in clinical use over the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: With the expansion of cost-control efforts, the recycling of medical devices appears inevitable. Previous data have demonstrated the safety of reuse of external fixation devices, and this study confirms that finding. Our paper demonstrates the real cost savings associated with a manufacturer-based testing and recertification program. Issues of voluntary participation in reuse programs, component ownership, and the impact of savings on patient charges are yet to be worked out by individual institutions.

Use of external fixators for open tibial injuries in the rural third world: panacea of the poor?

AIM: To determine the cost-effectiveness of external in comparison with internal fixation of tibial fractures in rural India. METHODS: A retrospective study of 41 patients with open tibial fractures and 1 with infected non-union, treated with tubular external fixators. RESULTS: The average cost to the patient of an external fixator was approximately Rs 600 (or US $12), which compares very favourably with costs of internal fixation of similar effectiveness. CONCLUSION: In rural India, the use of locally made external fixators for primary and definitive treatment of open tibial fractures is cost effective.