Telemedicine Improves Performance of a Two-Incision Lower Leg Fasciotomy by Combat Medics: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess if a head-mounted display (HMD) providing telemedicine support improves performance of a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy by a NATO special operations combat medic (combat medic). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six combat medics were randomized into two groups: One group performed a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy with the assistance of an HMD, while the control group completed the procedure without guidance. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine the possible differences in release of compartments and performance scores, as assessed by a supervising medical specialist. A Fisher's exact test was used to compare the proportions of collateral damage between groups. An independent-samples t-test was used to interpret total procedure times. The usability and technical factors involving HMD utilization were also assessed. RESULTS: Combat medics in the HMD group released the anterior compartment (P ≤ .001) and deep posterior compartment (P = .008) significantly better. There was significantly more iatrogenic muscle (P ≤ .001) and venous damage (P ≤ .001) in the control group. The overall performance of combat medics in the HMD group was significantly better than that of the control group (P < .001). Combat medics in the control group were significantly faster (P = .012). The combat medics were very satisfied with the HMD. The HMD showed no major technical errors. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial shows that a HMD providing telemedicine support leads to significantly better performance of a two-incision lower leg fasciotomy by a combat medic with less iatrogenic muscle and venous damage.

Surgical outcomes for chronic exertional compartment syndrome following improved diagnostic criteria.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic exertional compartment syndrome (CECS) presents with pain during exercise, most commonly within the anterior compartment of the lower limb. A diagnosis is classically made from a typical history and the measurement of intramuscular compartmental pressure (IMCP) testing. Improved, more specific diagnostic criteria for IMCP testing allow clinicians to now be more certain of a diagnosis of CECS. Outcomes following surgical treatment in patients diagnosed using these more robust criteria are unknown. METHODS: All patients undergoing fasciectomy for anterior compartment CECS at a single rehabilitation unit were identified between 2014 and 2017. Wilcoxen signed-rank test was used to compare military fitness grading and paired t-test was used to compare Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, FAAM Sport Specific and Exercise-Induced LimbPain-G outcome measures, presurgery and postsurgery. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in fitness grading between presurgical and postsurgical intervention (Z = -2.68, p < 0.01) with 46 % of patients improving their occupational medical grading. All secondary measures of outcome, looking at clinical symptoms, also improved. CONCLUSION: Almost half of the patients undergoing fasciectomy, following diagnosis using more specific criteria, will have an improvement in occupational medical grading. These outcomes represent the lower end of those reported in civilian populations. This is likely a result of a combination of factors, most notably the different diagnostic criteria followed and the more stringent criteria applied to military occupational grading, compared with civilian practice. Further work is now required to evaluate the impact of differing rehabilitation regimes on postoperative patients identified through this more specific diagnostic testing.

Fasciotomy Improvement Through Recognition of Errors Course: A Focused Needs Assessment for Error Management Training for Lower Extremity Fasciotomy Performance.

BACKGROUND: Many injuries from recent wars involve extremity trauma secondary to blasts, which predispose patients to developing extremity compartment syndrome. In military studies, 17% of fasciotomies required revision on arrival to a Role 4 hospital, and 41% of these had missed compartments, which is similar to that seen in civilian centers. While training has decreased this rate to 8%, this number is still too high. We conducted a focused needs assessment to guide the development of lower-extremity fasciotomy training. METHODS: In a predeployment assessment, 42 military surgeons performed a 2-incision, 4-compartment, lower-extremity fasciotomy on simulated lower leg models. Models were assessed for standardized and objectively-assessed major (inadequate skin or fascial incisions, missed compartments) and minor (failure to make an H-shaped incision over the lateral compartments, division of the greater saphenous vein) errors based on joint Trauma System clinical practice guidelines and approved training curricula. RESULTS: Four of 42 (9.5%) models contained no errors. Models averaged 4.3 ± 2.6 major and 0.3 ± 0.5 minor errors. 11 models (26.2%) had at least one missed compartment. The most common missed compartments were the deep posterior (17%) and anterior (14%). 29 (69%) had inadequate or poorly-placed skin incisions, with the most common being inadequate distal extension of the medial (10, 24%) and lateral (14, 33%) incisions, inadequate proximal extension of the lateral incision (6, 14%), medial incision too close to the tibia (7, 17%), and lateral incision over or behind the fibula (12, 29%). A total of 36 (86%) had inadequate fascial incisions. Inadequate fasciotomies were seen in the anterior (57%), lateral (55%), superficial (52%), and deep (34%) posterior compartments CONCLUSIONS: Performance on the models approximates what has been seen in military and civilian settings. This needs assessment will inform development of a simulation curriculum based on error-management and mastery learning theory to reduce the morbidity of lower-extremity compartment syndrome.

The impact of standardized protocol implementation for surgical damage control and temporary abdominal closure after emergent laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: To standardize care and promote early fascial closure among patients undergoing emergent laparotomy and temporary abdominal closure (TAC), we developed a protocol addressing patient selection, operative technique, resuscitation strategies, and critical care provisions. We hypothesized that primary fascial closure rates would increase following protocol implementation with no difference in complication rates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 138 adult trauma and emergency general surgery patients who underwent emergent laparotomy and TAC, comparing protocol patients (n = 60) to recent historic controls (n = 78) who would have met protocol inclusion criteria. The protocol includes low-volume 3% hypertonic saline resuscitation, judicious wound vacuum fluid replacement, and early relaparotomy with sequential fascial closure. Demographics, baseline characteristics, illness severity, resuscitation course, operative management, and outcomes were compared. The primary outcome was fascial closure. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and postoperative lactate levels, were similar between groups. Within 48 hours of initial laparotomy and TAC, protocol patients received significantly lower total intravenous fluid resuscitation volumes (9.7 vs. 11.4 L, p = 0.044) and exhibited higher serum osmolarity (303 vs. 293 mOsm/kg, p = 0.001). The interval between abdominal operations was significantly shorter following protocol implementation (28.2 vs. 32.2 hours, p = 0.027). The incidence of primary fascial closure was significantly higher in the protocol group (93% vs. 81%, p = 0.045, number needed to treat = 8.3). Complication rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol implementation was associated with lower crystalloid resuscitation volumes, a transient hyperosmolar state, shorter intervals between operations, and higher fascial closure rates with no difference in complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.