In vitro biomechanical comparison of 3.5 mm LC-DCP/intramedullary rod and 5 mm clamp-rod internal fixator (CRIF)/intramedullary rod fixation in a canine femoral gap model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the biomechanical properties of clamp rod internal fixation (CRIF)/rod and LC-DCP/rod constructs in a canine femoral gap model. STUDY DESIGN: Cadaveric biomechanical study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Canine femora (n = 10 pair). METHODS: Femora with 40 mm ostectomies were assigned to LC-DCP/rod or CRIF/rod treatment groups. Five construct pairs had 4-point bending and 5 pairs had torsional loading. Construct stiffness, strength, and bending angle at failure or permanent angular deformation (torsional loading) were determined. Statistical comparisons were performed using Student t tests; significance was set at P ≤ .05. RESULTS: There was significantly greater permanent angular deformation, or residual twist, in the CRIF/rod constructs (23.1 ± 0.89°) compared with LC-DCP/rod constructs (7.47 ± 2.08°). Whereas there was no significant difference in torsional stiffness of these constructs at torsional loads <4.92 N m (P = .819), LC-DCP/rod constructs had significantly greater torsional stiffness (0.303 ± 0.079 N m/°) and strength (11.546 ± 2.79 N m) than CRIF/rod construct stiffness (0.06 ± 0.013 N m/°) and strength (6.078 ± 0.527 N m) at torsional loads >4.92 N m. Differences in stiffness and strength in 4-point bending were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: LC-DCP/rod constructs had significantly less permanent angular deformation than CRIF/rod constructs. CRIF/rod constructs became less stiff as torsional load was increased, thus the LC-DCP/rod constructs had significantly greater torsional stiffness and strength under high torsional loads. LC-DCP/rod and CRIF/rod constructs performed similarly under 4-point bend loading conditions.

Meaningful use and good catches: More appropriate metrics for checklist effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of utilizing surgical safety checklists has been recently questioned. We evaluated our checklist performance after implementing a program that includes checklist-related good catches. METHODS: Multifaceted interventions aimed at the preincision checklist and 5 prospective audits were conducted from 2011-2015. We documented adherence to the checklist (verbalization of each checkpoint), fidelity (meaningful performance of each checkpoint), and good catches (events with the potential to cause the patient harm but that were prevented from occurring). Good catches were divided into quality improvement-based categories (processes, medication, safety, communication, and equipment). RESULTS: A total of 1,346 checklist performances were observed (range, 144-373/yr). Adherence to the preincision checklist improved from 30% to 95% (P < .001), while adherence to the preinduction and debriefing checklists decreased (71% to 56%, P = .002) and remained unchanged (76%), respectively. Preincision fidelity decreased from 86% to 76% (P = .012). Good catches were identified during 16% of preincision checklist performances; process issues were most common (32%) followed by issues of medication administration (30%) and safety (22%). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a systematic checklist program resulted in significant and sustainable improvement in performance. Meaningful use and associated good catches may be more appropriate metric than actual patient harm for measuring checklist effectiveness. Although not previously described, checklist-related good catches represent an unknown benefit of checklists.