Estimating the economic impact of complications after open tibial fracture: A secondary analysis of the pilot Gentamicin Open Tibia trial (pGO-Tibia).

Objectives: To estimate the indirect economic impact of tibial fractures and their associated adverse events (AEs) in Tanzania. Design: A secondary analysis of the pilot Gentamicin Open (pGO)-Tibia randomized control trial estimating the indirect economic impact of suffering an AE, defined as a fracture-related infection (FRI) and/or nonunion, after an open tibial fracture in Tanzania. Setting: The pGO-Tibia trial was conducted from November 2019 to August 2021 at the Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Patients/Participants: One hundred adults with open tibial shaft fractures participated in this study. Intervention: Work hours were compared between AE groups. Cost data were analyzed using a weighted-average hourly wage and converted into purchasing power parity-adjusted USD. Main Outcome Measurements: Indirect economic impact was analyzed from the perspective of return to work (RTW), lost productivity, and other indirect economic and household costs. RTW was analyzed using a survival analysis. Results: Half of patients returned to work at 1-year follow-up, with those experiencing an AE having a significantly lower rate of RTW. Lost productivity was nearly double for those experiencing an AE. There was a significant difference in the mean outside health care costs between groups. The total mean indirect cost was $2385 with an AE, representing 92% of mean annual income and an increase of $1195 compared with no AE. There were significantly more patients with an AE who endorsed difficulty affording household expenses postinjury and who borrowed money to pay for their medical expenses. Conclusions: This study identified serious economic burden after tibial fractures, with significant differences in total indirect cost between those with and without an AE. Level of Evidence: II.

Best Practices for Developing International Academic Partnerships in Orthopaedics.

ABSTRACT: Traumatic and nontraumatic orthopaedic conditions are major contributors to global morbidity and account for the majority of life-years lived with disability worldwide. Additionally, the burden of musculoskeletal injuries has increased substantially over the past 3 decades. Unfortunately, in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), access to orthopaedic care is limited, leading to a disproportionate burden of disease. The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery has emphasized the urgent need for unified international commitment and research collaboration to achieve universal access to safe and affordable surgical care. However, conducting high-quality orthopaedic research in LMICs remains challenging as a result of disparities in training, access to resources, infrastructure, and equipment availability. Partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs have emerged in recent decades as an effective approach to combatting some of these challenges. These partnerships aim to bridge the gaps by facilitating collaborative research and knowledge exchange. The establishment of successful partnerships requires a collaborative and reciprocal approach that starts with a clear understanding of mutual research aims and the availability of resources. Despite the potential benefits, various factors can make establishing such partnerships difficult. However, these partnerships can have a substantial impact in delivering quality orthopaedic education and research training, thus improving access to care in resource-limited environments. This paper represents the collaborative effort of multiple international academic orthopaedic surgeons with extensive experience in HIC-LMIC partnerships. Our aims were to outline the best practices for conducting orthopaedic research within these relationships and to provide guidance for future successful collaborations.

Establishing Sustainable Arthroscopy Capacity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) through High-Income Country/LMIC Partnerships: A Qualitative Analysis.

Disparities exist in treatment modalities, including arthroscopic surgery, for orthopaedic injuries between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Arthroscopy training is a self-identified goal of LMIC surgeons to meet the burden of musculoskeletal injury. The aim of this study was to determine the necessary "key ingredients" for establishing arthroscopy centers in LMICs in order to build capacity and expand training in arthroscopy in lower-resource settings. Methods: This study utilized semi-structured interviews with orthopaedic surgeons from both HICs and LMICs who had prior experience establishing arthroscopy efforts in LMICs. Participants were recruited via referral sampling. Interviews were qualitatively analyzed in duplicate via a coding schema based on repeated themes from preliminary interview review. Subgroup analysis was conducted between HIC and LMIC respondents. Results: We identified perspectives shared between HIC and LMIC stakeholders and perspectives unique to 1 group. Both groups were motivated by opportunities to improve patients' lives; the LMIC respondents were also motivated by access to skills and equipment, and the HIC respondents were motivated by teaching opportunities. Key ingredients identified by both groups included an emphasis on teaching and the need for high-cost equipment, such as arthroscopy towers. The LMIC respondents reported single-use materials as a key ingredient, while the HIC respondents reported local champions as crucial. The LMIC respondents cited the scarcity of implants and shaver blades as a barrier to the continuity of arthroscopy efforts. Conclusions: Incorporation of the identified key ingredients, along with leveraging the motivations of the host and the visiting participant, will allow future international arthroscopy partnerships to better match proposed interventions with the host-identified needs. Clinical Relevance: Arthroscopy is an important tool for treatment of musculoskeletal injury. Increasing access to arthroscopy is an important goal to achieve greater equity in musculoskeletal care globally. Developing successful partnerships between HICs and LMICs to support arthroscopic surgery requires sustained relationships that address local needs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of prosthesis provision for patients with transfemoral amputation in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Limb loss leads to significant disability. Prostheses may mitigate this disability but are not readily accessible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cost-effectiveness data related to prosthesis provision in resource-constrained environments such as Tanzania is greatly limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a prosthesis intervention compared with that of no prosthesis for persons with transfemoral amputations in an LMIC. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study. METHODS: Thirty-eight patients were prospectively followed up. Clinical improvement with prosthesis provision was measured using EuroQuol-5D, represented as quality-adjusted life years gained. Direct and indirect costs were measured. The primary outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year, measured at 1 year and projected over a lifetime using a Markov model. Reference case was set as a single prosthesis provided without replacement from a payer perspective. Additional scenarios included the societal perspective and replacement of the prosthesis. Uncertainty was measured with one-way probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $242 for those without prosthetic replacement over a lifetime, and the ICER was $390 for those with prosthetic replacement over a lifeime. From the societal perspective, prosthesis provision was both less expensive and more effective. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated the ICER remained below the willingness to pay threshold up to prosthesis costs of $763. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest prosthesis provision in an LMIC may be cost-effective, but further studies with long-term follow up are needed to validate the results.

Assessment of clinical and radiographic outcomes following retrograde versus antegrade nailing of infraisthmic femoral shaft fractures without the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy in Tanzania.

To compare clinical and radiographic outcomes following antegrade versus retrograde intramedullary nailing of infraisthmic femoral shaft fractures. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital in Tanzania. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with infraisthmic diaphyseal femur fractures. INTERVENTION: Antegrade or retrograde SIGN intramedullary nail. OUTCOMES: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL), radiographic healing, knee range of motion, pain, and alignment (defined as less than or equal to 5 degrees of angular deformity in both coronal and sagittal planes) assessed at 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Of 160 included patients, 141 (88.1%) had 1-year follow-up and were included in analyses: 42 (29.8%) antegrade, 99 (70.2%) retrograde. Antegrade-nailed patients had more loss of coronal alignment (P = .026), but less knee pain at 6 months (P = .017) and increased knee flexion at 6 weeks (P = .021). There were no significant differences in reoperations, HRQOL, hip pain, knee extension, radiographic healing, or sagittal alignment. CONCLUSIONS: Antegrade nailing of infraisthmic femur fractures had higher incidence of alignment loss, but no detectable differences in HRQOL, pain, radiographic healing, or reoperation. Retrograde nailing was associated with increased knee pain and decreased knee range of motion at early time points, but this dissipated by 1 year. To our knowledge, this is the first study to prospectively compare outcomes over 1 year in patients treated with antegrade versus retrograde SIGN intramedullary nailing of infraisthmic femur fractures.Level of Evidence: III.

Intramedullary nailing versus external fixation for open tibia fractures in Tanzania: a cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Open tibia fractures pose a clinical and economic burden that is disproportionately borne by low-income countries. A randomized trial conducted by our group showed no difference in infection and nonunion comparing 2 treatments: external fixation (EF) and intramedullary nailing (IMN). Secondary outcomes favored IMN. In the absence of clear clinical superiority, we sought to compare costs between EF and IMN. DESIGN: Secondary cost analysis. SETTING: Single institution in Tanzania. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with acute diaphyseal open tibia fractures who participated in a previous randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: SIGN IMN versus monoplanar EF. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Direct costs of initial surgery and hospitalization and subsequent reoperation: implant, instrumentation, medications, disposable supplies, and personnel costs.Indirect costs from lost productivity of patient and caregiver.Societal (total) costs: sum of direct and indirect costs.All costs were reported in 2018 USD. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen patients were included (110 IMN, 108 EF). From a payer perspective, costs were $365.83 (95% CI: $332.75-405.76) for IMN compared with $331.25 ($301.01-363.14) for EF, whereas from a societal perspective, costs were $2664.59 ($1711.22-3955.25) for IMN and $2560.81 ($1700.54-3715.09) for EF. The largest drivers of cost were reoperation and lost productivity. Accounting for uncertainty in multiple variables, probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that EF was less costly than IMN from the societal perspective in only 55% of simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Intramedullary nail fixation compared with external fixation of open tibia fractures in a resource-constrained setting is not associated with increased cost from a societal perspective.

Early treatment of open diaphyseal tibia fracture with intramedullary nail versus external fixator in Tanzania: Cost effectiveness analysis using preliminary data from Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute.

INTRODUCTION: Open tibia fractures are some of the most common types of Orthopedics injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Tanzania, open tibia fractures are treated either conservatively by prolonged cast or surgically by external fixation (EF) or intramedullary nail (IMN) when available. The cost of treatment and amount of time patients spend away from work are major economic concerns with prolonged casting and EF. The goal of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of IMN versus EF in the treatment of open diaphyseal tibia fractures at Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute (Dar es Salaam, Tanzania). METHODS: This is a prospective randomized control study conducted of patients with a closeable AO/OTA 42 open diaphyseal tibia fracture. The patients underwent surgical fixation with either IMN or EF at Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute (MOI), and were followed up at 2, 6, and 12 weeks postoperatively. A micro-costing method was used to estimate the fixed and variable costs of IMN and EF of the open diaphyseal tibial fracture. RESULTS: The mean total cost per patient was lower for the IMN group ($425.8 ± 38.4) compared to the EF group ($559.6 ± 70.5, p < 0.001), with savings of $133.80 per patient for the IMN group. The mean hospital stay was 2.72 ± 1.40 days for the IMN group and 2.44 ± 1.47 days for the EF group (p = 0.5). Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.26 per patient for the IMN group and 0.24 in the EF group at 12 weeks (p = 0.8). Ninety-two percent of patients in the IMN group achieved fracture union versus 60% in the EF group at three months postoperatively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: IM nailing of a closeable open diaphyseal tibial fracture is more cost effective than EF. In addition, IM nailing has better union rates at three months compared to EF.

The burden of femoral shaft fractures in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Road traffic injuries disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and are associated with femur fractures that lead to long-term disability. Information about these injuries is crucial for appropriate healthcare resource allocation. The purpose of this study is to estimate the incidence of femoral shaft fractures in Tanzania and describe the unmet surgical burden. METHODS: Study sites included six government hospitals across Tanzania. Investigators collected data from hospital admission and procedural logbooks to estimate femoral shaft fracture incidence and their treatment methods. Semi-quantitative interviews were conducted with relevant hospital personnel to validate estimates obtained from hospital records. Investigators gathered road traffic incident (RTI) statistics from national police reports and calculated femur fracture:RTI ratios. RESULTS: Femoral shaft fracture annual incidence rate ranged from 2.1 to 18.4 per 100,000 people. Median low and high femur fracture:RTI ratio were 0.54 and 0.73, respectively. At smaller hospitals, many patients (5-25%) were treated with traction, and a majority (70-90%) are referred to other centers. Barriers to surgery at each hospital include a lack of surgical implants, equipment, and personnel. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate is similar to previous estimations, and it is consistent with an increased femoral shaft fracture incidence in Tanzania when compared to higher income countries. The femur fracture:RTI ratio may be a valid tool for estimating femur fracture incidence rates. There is an unmet orthopaedic surgical burden for femur fractures treatment at rural hospitals in Tanzania, and the barriers to treatment could be targets for future interventions.

The Cost of Intramedullary Nailing for Femoral Shaft Fractures in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: Femoral shaft fractures are one of the most common injuries seen by surgeons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Surgical repair in LMICs is often dismissed as not being cost-effective or unsafe, though little evidence exists to support this notion. Therefore, the goal of this study is to determine the cost of intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures in Tanzania. METHODS: We used micro-costing methods to estimate the fixed and variable costs of intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures. Variable costs assessed included medical personnel costs, ward personnel costs, implants, medications, and single-use supplies. Fixed costs included costs for surgical instruments and administrative and ancillary staff. RESULTS: 46 adult femoral shaft fracture patients admitted to Muhimbili Orthopaedic Institute between June and September 2014 were enrolled and treated with intramedullary fixation. The total cost per patient was $530.87 (SD $129.99). The mean variable cost per patient was $419.87 (SD $129.99), the largest portion coming from ward personnel $144.47 (SD $123.30), followed by implant $134.10 (SD $15.00) medical personnel $106.86 (SD $28.18), and medications/supplies $30.05 (SD $12.28). The mean fixed cost per patient was $111.00, consisting of support staff, $103.50, and surgical instruments, $7.50. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides empirical information on the variable and fixed costs of intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures in LMICs. Importantly, the lack of surgical capacity was the primary driver of the largest cost for this procedure, preoperative ward personnel time. Our results provide the cost data for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis on this intervention.

The SIGN Nail: Factors in a Successful Device for Low-Resource Settings.

Surgeons in low-resource settings manage an increasing number of patients presenting with high-energy fractures. The number of surgeons and the operating time available are frequently not adequate to treat these fractures in a timely manner. A common cause of delay in treating fractures is waiting for the patient to accumulate sufficient funding to pay for the surgery, including the surgical implant. The donation of the SIGN intramedullary nail interlocking screw system obviates a major delay in timing of surgery. The SIGN intramedullary nail has been designed to be used in low-resource settings as it can be placed without fluoroscopy or electricity. The SIGN-trained surgeons are very skillful in hand reaming the canal, placing the nail, and interlocking screws without fluoroscopy. As more is learned about fracture healing, the SIGN system continues to evolve. The SIGN system is expanding to include deformity correction and soft tissue coverage.