RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Poly-trauma is among the top ten leading causes of mortality and morbidity in developing countries. Road traffic injuries are the major cause of mortality in the overall burden of deaths related to injuries. The aim of this publication is to show how important are the principles of management in saving life even in austere limited resource settings. CASE PRESENTATION: We herein present a case of a 17-year-old male who presented to our emergency department about an hour after being involved in motor traffic accident in a semiconscious state, in hypovolemic shock and sustained multiple injuries. He had multiple limb and ribs fractures and blunt abdominal injury. He was rushed to the hospital where he was resuscitated at the emergency department and admitted in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). He was scheduled for surgery the following day. His post-operative recovery was uneventful and was discharged after one month. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: The scarce resources and efforts spent on these patients prove to be futile in many situations because of delayed admission, lack of proper pre-hospital care and associated complications which cause irreversible damage. Management of a Poly-trauma patient should start from the scene of accident, during transportation and finally in the hospital by following all the principles of poly-trauma management using a multi-disciplinary approach. CONCLUSION: Timely diagnosis and proper management of a Poly-trauma patient can save life even in limited resource Centers.
RESUMEN
In total, 80% of clubfoot cases occur in low- and middle-income countries, where lack of clinical knowledge of the Ponseti method of treatment presents as a major barrier to treatment. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of an electronic learning course to teach clinicians in Tanzania Ponseti method theory. A total of 30 clinicians were recruited from clinics with high referral rates for clubfoot patients and invited to 1 of 3 training sites: Mbeya (n = 15), Zanzibar (n = 10), and Mwanza (n = 5). Baseline knowledge, measured through a pretest, was compared to performance on a posttest after e-learning course completion. Scores for Mbeya and Zanzibar participants improved from 44 ± 12.5 to 69.8 ± 16.5 (P < .0001) and 44.3 ± 14.0 to 67.9 ± 21.4 (P = .01), respectively. Our results suggest that an e-learning course may be an effective method of disseminating Ponseti method theory in Tanzania. Successful implementation requires an understanding of the device availability and technology literacy of the users.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial prophylaxis reduces the incidence of postoperative wound infections especially among patients undergoing orthopedics surgery. However, there is dearth of information on the clinical effectiveness, spectrum limitations and practical contextual information on third and fourth generation cephalosporins. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cefepime and ceftriaxone as peri-operative systemic antimicrobial prophylaxis in elective orthopedic surgery in our center. METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized, open label comparative clinical study of patients undergoing elective orthopedic procedures at the Bugando Medical Centre (BMC) between June 2014 and February 2015. Two hundred thirty participants were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into Ceftriaxone regimen (group A) or Cefepime regimen (group B). Participants in ceftriaxone or cefepime group received 50 mg/kg up to 2 g single dose perioperative intravenous infusion at least 30 min before incision. Both groups were followed for 30 days using a Center for Disease Control superficial surgical site infection criterion for the outcome. A two-tailed margin of equivalence was set at 5% analyzed on the intent to treat. RESULTS: All 230 participants were subjected to final analysis with no patient being lost to follow-up. Superficial surgical site infection occurred in 5 out of 117 (4.3%, 0.6 to 7.9 at 95% CI) patients receiving cefepime compared to 3 out of 113 (2.7%, 0.3 to 5.6 at 95% CI) among patients receiving ceftriaxone regimen. The absolute difference of 1.6% (95% Confidence Interval: -6.3 to 3.1), equivocally lies outside the 5% statistically significant margin of presumed clinical equivalence. CONCLUSION: The difference between cefepime and ceftriaxone in preventing SSIs following elective clean orthopedic surgery was not statistically significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trial Registry: PACTR201406000803420.