An Analysis of Participant Preferences Regarding Virtual Versus In-person Format of Orthopaedic Surgery Educational Materials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

INTRODUCTION: The University of California, San Francisco Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology Surgical Management and Reconstructive Training (SMART) course has instructed orthopaedic surgeons from low-resource countries on soft-tissue reconstruction. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the course was conducted in-person; however, it was transitioned to a virtual format during the pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine participant preferences regarding a virtual or in-person SMART course format. METHODS: Survey data were collected via e-mail after each SMART course using RedCap or Qualtrics. Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata. RESULTS: There were 247 survey respondents from 44 countries representing all world regions, with Africa (125, 51%) the most represented. Of those who attended both an in-person and virtual course, most (82%) preferred the in-person format. In addition, all measured course outcomes were significantly better for participants attending the in-person course. The most common reason for not attending an in-person course was the cost of travel (38, 51%). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated a preference toward in-person learning for the SMART course. In addition, those surgeons participating in the in-person course endorsed increased positive outcomes from the course. Increased emphasis should be placed on in-person surgical skills training for low-resource surgeons.

Establishing Consensus on Essential Resources for Musculoskeletal Trauma Care Worldwide: A Modified Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that formalized trauma systems enhance patient functional outcomes and decrease mortality rates, there remains a lack of such systems globally. Critical to trauma systems are the equipment, materials, and supplies needed to support care, which vary in availability regionally. The purpose of the present study was to identify essential resources for musculoskeletal trauma care across diverse resource settings worldwide. METHODS: The modified Delphi method was utilized, with 3 rounds of electronic surveys. Respondents consisted of 1 surgeon with expertise in musculoskeletal trauma per country. Participants were identified with use of the AO Trauma, AO Alliance, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, and European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery networks. Respondents rated resources on a Likert scale from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). The "most essential" resources were classified as those rated ≤2 by ≥75% of the sampled group. RESULTS: One hundred and three of 111 invited surgeons completed the first survey and were included throughout the subsequent rounds (representing a 93% response rate). Most participants were fellowship-trained (78%) trauma and orthopaedic surgeons (90%) practicing in an academic setting (62%), and 46% had >20 years of experience. Respondents represented low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs; 35%), upper-middle income countries (UMICs; 30%), and high-income countries (HICs; 35%). The initial survey identified 308 unique resources for pre-hospital, in-hospital, and post-hospital phases of care, of which 71 resources achieved consensus as the most essential. There was a significant difference (p < 0.0167) in ratings between income groups for 16 resources, all of which were related to general trauma care rather than musculoskeletal injury management. CONCLUSIONS: There was agreement on a core list of essential musculoskeletal trauma care resources by respondents from LMICs, UMICs, and HICs. All significant differences in resource ratings were related to general trauma management. This study represents a first step toward establishing international consensus and underscores the need to prioritize resources that are locally available. The information can be used to develop effective guidelines and policies, create best-practice treatment standards, and advocate for necessary resources worldwide. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study utilized the Delphi method representing expert opinion; however, this work did not examine patient management and therefore does not have a clinical Level of Evidence.

Leadership development training for orthopaedic trauma surgeons: an international survey.

Purpose: This study examined the leadership development themes that global orthopaedic surgeons in differently resourced countries perceive as essential components and evaluated barriers to attending leadership development programs. Methods: This multinational, 45-question survey engaged orthopaedic surgeons (one expert per country). The questionnaire collected participants' demographics, perception of effective leadership traits, and valuation of various leadership themes based on importance and interest. Results: The survey was completed by 110 orthopaedic surgeons worldwide. Respondents most commonly reported holding a leadership position (87%) in hospital settings (62%), clinical settings (47%), and national orthopaedic societies (46%). The greatest proportion of participants reported having never attended a leadership course (42%). Participants regarded "high performing team-building," "professional ethics," and "organizational structure and ability to lead" as the most important leadership themes. No significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences were identified among perceived importance or interest in leadership themes between income levels; however, statistically significant differences were identified in the questionnaire; respondents in low- and middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs) demonstrated a stronger interest in attending a leadership course than those in high-income countries (HICs) (98% vs. 79%, P = 0.013), and fewer surgeons in LICs/LMICs had taken personality assessment tests than those in HICs (22% vs. 49%, P = 0.019). The most common barriers to attending leadership courses were lack of opportunities and invitations (57%), difficulty missing work (22%), and cost of course attendance (22%). Conclusions: These findings can better inform the development of effective curricula and provide a framework for a successful model for the future. Level of Evidence: V.

Novel e-learning platform for orthopaedic training in LMICs: A descriptive review of the IGOT portal.

Background: While e-learning has been written about extensively within the context of orthopaedics in the United States, there are few articles describing e-learning initiatives geared towards low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). The Institute for Global Orthopaedics and Traumatology (IGOT) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) developed the IGOT Learning Portal to meet this need. Methods: The IGOT Learning Portal was designed to address knowledge gaps in patient care by increasing access to high-quality orthopaedic education for surgeons and trainees worldwide. It offers 10 distinct, asynchronous courses, which are divided into a modular format. Course enrollment is free and accessible to any surgeon or trainee with a web-browsing capable device and internet connection. Results: There are more than 2700 registered users and 300 active learners enrolled in IGOT Learning Portal courses. The Surgical Management and Reconstructive Training (SMART) program is the most commonly taken course. Learners represent 32 different countries across six continents. The IGOT portal also has surgical videos available on YouTube. The IGOT Portal YouTube channel has over 2000 subscribers and over 143,000 total views. Conclusions: The IGOT Learning Portal is an innovative approach to address the global disparity in orthopaedic trauma care by improving access to high-quality surgical education for surgeons and trainees both in the US and internationally. The development of an interactive online forum may be a beneficial addition to the Portal. Future directions include assessing content retention, participant interaction, and expanding existing content to other orthopaedic subspecialties.

Opportunities for International Orthopaedic Volunteerism: An Exploration of United States and Canada-Based Nonprofit Organizations.

BACKGROUND: In low and middle-income countries (LMICs), there are often not enough orthopaedic surgeons to treat musculoskeletal conditions. International volunteerism is 1 way that the orthopaedic community seeks to meet this need. This study explored the opportunities available for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer overseas as offered by nonprofit organizations in the United States and Canada. METHODS: A systematic internet search was conducted using 2 distinct search strategies. A website was considered a "hit" if it was that of a U.S. or Canada-based nonprofit, volunteer, or non-governmental organization that had opportunities for international orthopaedic volunteerism. Duplicate hits were eliminated to identify distinct organizations. Data regarding the work and geographical reach of the organization, as well as changes to its volunteer programs as a result of COVID-19, were extracted from each hit. RESULTS: Of the 38 distinct organizations identified in the U.S. and Canada, the most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were pediatrics (37%), hand (24%), and arthroplasty (18%). Foot and ankle (4 organizations; 11%), sports medicine (2 organizations; 5%), and oncology (1 organization; 3%) were the least represented subspecialities. The most common regions for volunteer trips included Latin America and the Caribbean, followed by West and East Africa. Twelve organizations (32%) were identified as having a religious affiliation. For most organizations, the trip duration was a minimum of 1 week. All volunteer organizations included operative or clinical experiences as part of their trips, and the majority of organizations (58%) reported that their trips included opportunities for training local surgeons. Many organizations (71%) reported having resumed trips after halting them during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Many opportunities exist for orthopaedic surgeons to volunteer their time and skills abroad. Future directions for the improvement of international volunteer efforts among the orthopaedic community could include expanding the number of existing volunteer opportunities and assessing the ethics, safety, efficacy, and longevity of these programs.

Orthopaedic trauma observerships in North America for international surgeons: the visitors' perspective.

International observerships are one of many efforts aimed at addressing disparities in orthopaedic trauma care globally. However, their impact on visiting surgeons and their home countries, as well as the challenges faced by participating surgeons, are not well-documented. Methods: A survey was distributed to overseas surgeons who participated in an orthopaedic trauma observership from 2009 to 2020. Surgeons were identified through North American institutions previously recognized by the authors as having hosted international observerships. Information gathered included participant demographics, details of and perceived impact of the observership, and barriers faced before, during, and after the program. Responses from 148 international surgeons (ISs) from 49 countries were analyzed. Results: Sixty percent of observerships were at academic programs, 57% lasted 1-3 months, and 60% were self-funded. Participants identified cost and housing as primary barriers. After completing their observership, lack of funding, equipment and support staff, and excessive workload prevented participants from implementing changes at their clinical practice. Most observers believed that they gained relevant clinical (89%) and surgical knowledge (67%) and developed a professional network of North American hosts (63%). The most common suggested changes to the observership were greater hands-on experience in the operating room and structured goal setting relevant to the visiting surgeon. Conclusions: Visiting surgeons find North American orthopaedic trauma observerships helpful in improving their surgical and clinical skills. However, financial constraints and resource limitations at their clinical practice and limited operative experience during the observership present barriers to maximizing this clinical experience. To enhance the relevance of clinical observerships for ISs and impact global orthopaedic trauma care, the unique needs and challenges facing ISs must be addressed. Level of Evidence: IV-Cross-Sectional Study.

Barriers to and Outcomes of Initiating Clinical Research at Two Trauma Centers in Mexico.

INTRODUCTION: Despite efforts to advance clinical research through collaboration between Latin and North American partners, there remains persistent barriers to performing investigative work. To overcome these obstacles, a team of over 100 surgeon-leaders from 18 Latin American countries founded the Asociación de Cirujanos Traumatólogos de las Américas (ACTUAR). One of ACTUAR's first major collaborative projects, initiated in 2018, was a prospective, observational, multicenter study evaluating quality of life after open tibia fracture management. The current study identified common barriers experienced during the initiation of this study, as exemplified through two sites in Mexico. The study aims to identify obstacles to proactively overcome these in future collaborative work. METHODS: Two research assistants from University of California, San Francisco and two research coordinators from Mexico were recruited to share their experiences, identify common barriers experienced during site enrollment and on-boarding for the ACTUAR open tibia study, and discuss possible solutions. RESULTS: Barriers were organized into three categories: structural, logistical, and intrapersonal. Structural barriers included differences in patient populations and resources between private and public hospitals. Logistical barriers included ambiguous ethical review processes, internet availability, and low patient follow-up. Primary enrollment as a resident responsibility led to some intrapersonal barriers. Potential solutions were identified for each barrier and agreed upon by all collaborators. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple barriers were identified by research personnel who initiated a prospective surgical clinical research study in Mexico. Through collaborative approaches, many potential solutions may help overcome these barriers and build locally led research capacity in Latin America.

Open tibial shaft fracture management in Argentina: an evaluation of treatment standards in diverse resource settings.

Background: Argentina is a country with varying access to orthopedic surgical care. The Argentine Association of Trauma and Orthopedics (AATO) "Interior Committee" was developed to address potential regional differences and promote standardization of orthopedic trauma care. The paper assesses the level of national standardization of the management of open tibia fractures across 9 provinces in Argentina. Methods: Utilizing a matched-comparison group design, management of these injuries were assessed and compared between 3 groups: an "AATO Exterior Committee" consisting of surgeons that practice in Buenos Aires, and 2 "Interior Committees," comprising surgeons that practice in outlying provinces, 1 of which is affiliated with the AATO, and 1 that is not affiliated with the AATO. The study was conducted in 2 phases: phase 1 assessed open tibia fracture management characteristics, and phase 2 evaluated the management of soft-tissue wound coverage following open fractures. Results: Soft-tissue coverage procedures for Gustilo Anderson Type IIIB fractures were more commonly performed by orthopedic surgeons in Interior Committees than the AATO Exterior Committee. Greater rates of definitive wound coverage within 7 days post-injury were reported in both Interior Committees compared to the Exterior Committee. Plastic surgeons were reported as more available to those in the AATO Exterior Committee group than in the AATO Interior Committees. Conclusion: While treatment patterns were evident among groups, differences were identified in the management and timing of soft-tissue coverage in Gustilo Anderson Type IIIB fractures between the Exterior Committee and both Interior Committees. Future targeted educational and surgical hands-on training opportunities that emphasize challenges faced in resource-limited settings may improve the management of open tibia fractures in Argentina.

Open Tibial Fracture Treatment in Argentina: Reoperation Rates Following Surgical Management.

The purposes of the present study were (1) to characterize open tibial fractures and their treatment in trauma centers located across different regions of Argentina and (2) to evaluate the rates of and indications for reoperation after the surgical treatment of such fractures. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study evaluated open tibial fractures in Argentina that were operatively treated by experienced orthopaedic trauma surgeon-members of the Argentine Association of Orthopedic Trauma (AATO) between January 2015 and June 2020. Data were collected from 13 hospital databases; 8 hospitals were designated as "interior," and 5 hospitals were designated as "exterior." The study included 701 skeletally mature patients, all of whom had a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Information was collected on patient demographics, injury pattern and mechanism, fracture classification, treatment modality, reoperation rates, time between definitive fixation and reoperation, and indications for reoperation. Results: Seventy-six percent of presenting injuries were the result of a high-energy mechanism. Intramedullary nailing represented the most common type of fixation (88%). One hundred and fifty patients (21%) required reoperation. Delayed union/nonunion was the most common indication for reoperation in patients who had been previously treated with intramedullary nail fixation (31%; 39 of 126), and infection was the most common indication for reoperation in patients who had been treated with plate fixation (43%; 3 of 7). The time between the injury and definitive fixation was significantly different between the interior and exterior trauma centers (13.8 versus 4.7 days; p < 0.001), as was the time between definitive fixation and reoperation (69.3 versus 25.2 days; p = 0.004). The reoperation rates for the interior and exterior trauma centers were similar (20% versus 24%; p = 0.2). Infection, delayed union/nonunion, and implant removal were the most common indications for reoperation across groups. Conclusions: An improved understanding of the factors that influence treatment may help to guide future areas for improvement, establish educational goals, and create additional nationwide guidelines for open tibial fracture treatment. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Leadership development programs for healthcare professionals in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Leadership development programs are integral to the future success of public health and healthcare organisations. Despite low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) bearing a greater burden of unmet medical needs, fewer professional development opportunities exist in these settings. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of available leadership development programs for healthcare professionals in LMICs. METHODS: This study conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-P systematic review and traditional meta-analyses guidelines. Articles were identified through five academic databases: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, and Business Source Complete. Eligibility criteria included original research published in peer-reviewed journals on non-clinical, leadership development programs offered to healthcare professionals in LMICs worldwide. RESULTS: Forty-one peer-reviewed articles met inclusion criteria, of which physicians, nurses, and public health professionals were the most common types of providers to attend leadership development programs; no programs exclusively targeted surgeons. The greatest proportion of programs were short-term interventions (ranging from 1 day to 12 weeks). Communication, organizational structure and leadership, and personal development were identified as the three most common leadership themes in the review. Regionally, leadership programs were reported most commonly in Africa, specifically in Anglophone countries. Other regions worldwide, including Latin America and the Caribbean, were underrepresented in the review. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review identify gaps in leadership development programs for certain groups of healthcare professionals from certain geographical regions, supporting the need for further provision of and participation in these opportunities in LMICs.

Management of soft-tissue coverage of open tibia fractures in Latin America: Techniques, timing, and resources.

PURPOSE: This study examined soft-tissue coverage techniques of open tibia fractures, described soft-tissue treatment patterns across income groups, and determined resource accessibility and availability in Latin America. METHODS: A 36-question survey was distributed to orthopaedic surgeons in Latin America through two networks: national orthopaedic societies and the Asociación de Cirujanos Traumatólogos de las Américas (ACTUAR). Demographic information was collected, and responses were stratified by income groups: high-income countries (HICs) and middle-income countries (MICs). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 469 orthopaedic surgeons, representing 19 countries in Latin America (2 HICs and 17 MICs). Most respondents were male (89%), completed residency training (96%), and were fellowship-trained (71%). Only 44% of the respondents had received soft-tissue training. Respondents (77%) reported a strong interest in attending a soft-tissue training course. Plastic surgeons were more commonly the primary providers for Gustilo Anderson (GA) Type IIIB injuries in HICs than in MICs (100% vs. 47%, p<0.01) and plastic surgeons were more available (<24 h of patient presentation to the hospital) in HICs than MICs (63% vs. 26%, p = 0.05), demonstrating statistically significant differences. In addition, respondents in HICs performed free flaps more commonly than in MICs for proximal third (55% vs. 10%, p<0.01), middle third (36% vs. 9%, p = 0.02), and distal third (55% vs. 10%, p<0.01) lower extremity wounds. Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT or Wound VAC) was the only resource available to more than half of the respondents. Though not statistically significant, surgeons reported having more access to plastic surgeons at their institutions in HICs than MICs (91% vs. 62%, p = 0.12) and performed microsurgical flaps more commonly at their respective institutions (73% vs. 42%, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that most orthopaedic surgeons in Latin America have received no soft-tissue training, HICs and MICs have differences in access to plastic surgeons and expectations for flap type and timing to definitive coverage, and most respondents had limited access to necessary soft-tissue surgical resources. Further investigation into differences in the clinical outcomes related to soft-tissue coverage methods and protocols can provide additional insight into the importance of timing and access to specialists.

International Orthopaedic Volunteer Opportunities in Low and Middle-Income Countries.

ABSTRACT: Globally, the burden of musculoskeletal conditions continues to rise, disproportionately affecting low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The ability to meet these orthopaedic surgical care demands remains a challenge. To help address these issues, many orthopaedic surgeons seek opportunities to provide humanitarian assistance to the populations in need. While many global orthopaedic initiatives are well-intentioned and can offer short-term benefits to the local communities, it is essential to emphasize training and the integration of local surgeon-leaders. The commitment to developing educational and investigative capacity, as well as fostering sustainable, mutually beneficial partnerships in low-resource settings, is critical. To this end, global health organizations, such as the Consortium of Orthopaedic Academic Traumatologists (COACT), work to promote and ensure the lasting sustainability of musculoskeletal trauma care worldwide. This article describes global orthopaedic efforts that can effectively address musculoskeletal care through an examination of 5 domains: clinical care, clinical research, surgical education, disaster response, and advocacy.

Manejo de fracturas abiertas de tibia en Cuba / Management of Open Tibial Fractures in Cuba

Introducción: Las fracturas abiertas de tibia son un subconjunto de la carga de traumatismos en América Latina. Se examinaron cuestiones relacionadas con el tratamiento potencialmente críticas en Cuba, país con recursos limitados, pero con un programa nacional de salud estandarizado, coherencia en educación y similitudes de programas de posgrado. Objetivos: Describir los patrones de tratamiento de la fractura abierta de tibia en Cuba, y comparar las características del manejo agudo y tardío en siete provincias del país. Métodos: Se encuestaron 67 cirujanos ortopédicos para evaluar cuatro aspectos en el tratamiento de la fractura abierta: profilaxis antibiótica, irrigación y desbridamiento, estabilización y tratamiento de heridas. Se utilizó el método de muestreo por conveniencia para identificar a los cirujanos y el análisis se realizó mediante la prueba exacta de Fisher (p < 0,05). Resultados: Se administraron antibióticos posoperatorios durante más de 72 horas para las fracturas GA-I/II (49 por ciento) y las fracturas GA-III (70 por ciento). Los cirujanos de La Habana (n= 32) utilizaron con más frecuencia la fijación interna primaria para las fracturas GA-I/II, que los cirujanos en las restantes provincias (n= 35) (64,3 porciento vs. 30,3 por ciento, p= 0,008). Los cirujanos de otras provincias realizaron cierre primario en el momento de la fijación definitiva de fracturas GA-I /II con más frecuencia que los de La Habana (62,9 por ciento vs. 32,3 por ciento, p= 0,013). Para fracturas GA-III, la mayoría de los cirujanos habaneros (88,6 %), al igual que los de las restantes provincias (96,8 por ciento) prefirieron realizar cierre diferido.Conclusiones: El tratamiento de fracturas abiertas de tibia en Cuba es generalmente consistente con otros países de América Latina. Se describen las características del manejo de fracturas abiertas de tibia en Cuba y se comparan las diferencias en los métodos de estabilización y tratamiento de heridas entre provincias, lo cual resulta útil para evaluar si son resultado de diferencias en la práctica quirúrgica, o en la disponibilidad de recursos. Esto representa una ayuda al abordar las formas de optimizar la atención al paciente, a través de la capacitación especializada y la asignación de los recursos(AU)

Introduction: Open tibia fractures are a significant subset of the overall trauma burden in Latin America. Latin American countries vary in their access to orthopaedic care resources, and country-specific orthopaedic recommendations are necessary. Cuba, a country with limited resources, has a standardized national health program, consistencies in education, and similarities across post-graduate training programs. This study aimed to identify management preferences for open tibia factures in Cuba. Objectives: To describe the treatment of open tibial fractures in Cuba, and to compare the characteristics of acute and delayed management across seven Cuban provinces. Methods: Sixty-seven orthopaedic surgeons were surveyed to evaluate four aspects of open fracture management, regarding antibiotic prophylaxis, irrigation and debridement, stabilization, and wound management. The convenience sampling method was used to identify surgeons and the analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test (p <0.05). Results: Postoperative antibiotics were administered for more than 72 hours for GA-I / II fractures (49 pecent) and GA-III fractures (70 percent). Surgeons in Havana (n = 32) used primary internal fixation for GA-I / II fractures more frequently than surgeons in the remaining provinces (n = 35) (64.3 pecent vs. 30.3 percent p = 0.008). Surgeons from other provinces performed primary closure at the time of definitive fixation of GA-I / II fractures more frequently than those from Havana (62.9 percent vs. 32.3 percent, p = 0.013). For GA-III fractures, the majority of Havana surgeons (88.6 percent), as well as those of the remaining provinces (96.8 percent) preferred to perform deferred closure. Conclusions: The treatment of open tibial fractures in Cuba is generally consistent with other Latin American countries. The characteristics of the management of open tibial fractures in Cuba are described and differences in wound stabilization and treatment methods between provinces are compared, which is useful to assess whether they are the result of differences in surgical practice, or in availability of resources. This is helpful in addressing ways to optimize patient care through specialized training and resource allocation(AU)

Leadership development for orthopaedic trauma surgeons in Latin America: opportunities for and barriers to skill acquisition.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in leadership courses for physicians. Few opportunities are available in global regions with limited resources. This study describes orthopaedic trauma surgeons' desired leadership skill acquisition, opportunities, and barriers to course participation in Latin America. METHODS: Latin American orthopaedic trauma surgeons from the Asociación de Cirujanos Traumatólogos de las Americas (ACTUAR) network were surveyed. This survey solicited and gauged the surgeons' level of interest in leadership topics and their relative importance utilizing a 5-point Likert-scale. Additionally, comparisons were calculated between middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs) to ascertain if needs were different between groups. The survey included demographic information, nationality, level of training, years in practice, leadership position, needs assessment, and perceived barriers for leadership educational opportunities. RESULTS: One hundred forty-four orthopaedic surgeons completed the survey, representing 18 countries across Latin America; 15 MICs and 3 HICs. Participants had more than 20 years in practice (49%) and held leadership positions (81%) in hospital settings (62%), national orthopaedic societies (45%), and/or clinical settings (40%). Sixty-three percent had never attended a leadership course due to lack of opportunities/invitations (69%), difficulty missing work (24%), and costs (21%). Ninety-seven percent expressed interest in attending a leadership course. No difference in needs was determined between respondents from MICs and HICs. Professional Ethics, Crisis Management/Organizational Change Management, and High Performing Team-Building were identified as the most important leadership topics. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgeons in Latin America demonstrate an interest in acquiring additional leadership skills but have few opportunities. Identifying interests, knowledge gaps, and core competencies can guide the development of such opportunities.

Orthopaedic Trauma Research Priorities in Latin America: Developing Consensus Through a Modified Delphi Approach.

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial burden of musculoskeletal injury, orthopaedic trauma studies in Latin America are lacking. The purpose of the present study was to identify research priorities among orthopaedic trauma surgeons in Latin America. METHODS: Research questions were solicited from members of the Asociación de Cirujanos Traumatólogos de las Américas. Participants rated questions by importance from 1 to 9. All questions were redistributed with an aggregate rating, and participants rerated questions with knowledge of group responses. RESULTS: Seventy-eight participants completed the first survey and were included in subsequent surveys. The mean age was 51.8 years, and most participants were male (92%), had completed an orthopaedic trauma fellowship (60.3%), and participated in research (80.8%). Seventeen countries were represented; 5 respondents were from a high-income country, 67 were from an upper middle-income country, and 6 were from a lower middle-income country. Sixty-five questions were identified. Six questions were rated from 1 to 3 ("more important") by >70% of participants: (1) What is the optimal treatment protocol for elderly patients with hip fracture? (2) What is the most effective initial and definitive management of musculoskeletal injury, including timing and surgical strategy, for the polytraumatized patient? (3) What is the ideal state of open fracture treatment, including timeliness and method of antibiotics, debridement, surgical fixation, and closure or coverage, at each hospital level in the health-care system? (4) What patient and fracture characteristics predict infection after musculoskeletal injury? (5) What is the current state of treatment for fracture-related infection, including timeliness and method of antibiotics and surgical intervention, at each hospital level in the health-care system? (6) What is the optimal protocol for temporary management for the hemodynamically unstable patient with a pelvic or acetabular fracture? CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi study of orthopaedic trauma surgeons in Latin America identified geriatric hip fractures, polytrauma, open fractures, musculoskeletal infection, and pelvic and acetabular fractures as top research priorities. This information is important for resource allocation and goal setting for orthopaedic trauma in the region.

Motivations and impact of international rotations in low- and middle-income countries for orthopaedic surgery residents: Are we on the same page?

BACKGROUND: Despite interest among North American orthopaedic residents to pursue rotations in resource-limited settings, little is known regarding resident motivations and impact on host surgeons. METHODS: Surveys were distributed to North American orthopaedic surgeons and trainees who participated in international rotations during residency to assess motivations for participation and to orthopaedic surgeons at partnering low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions to assess impact of visiting trainees. RESULTS: Responses were received from 136 North American resident rotators and 51 LMIC host surgeons and trainees. North American respondents were motivated by a desire to increase surgical capacity at the LMIC while host surgeons reported a greater impact from learning from residents than on surgical capacity. Negative aspects reported by hosts included selfishness, lack of reciprocity, racial discrimination, competition for surgical experience, and resource burdens. CONCLUSIONS: The motivations and impact of orthopaedic resident rotations in LMICs need to be aligned. Host perceptions and bidirectional educational exchange should be incorporated into partnership guidelines.

Comparison of Case-Based Learning and Traditional Lectures in an Orthopedic Residency Anatomy Course.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of new pedagogical methods such as case-based learning (CBL) rather than traditional lectures in graduate medical education is poorly defined. We hypothesized that using CBL in lieu of lectures in an orthopedic surgery residency anatomy course would lead to increased resident engagement, improved resident satisfaction, and similar knowledge acquisition. DESIGN: A prospective, observational study design was used. CBL sessions were developed for an orthopedic surgery residency anatomy course. Content was delivered in 6 sessions (3 traditional lecture-based and 3 CBL) taught by the same attending surgeon. Engagement was measured every 10 minutes by 2 trained observers using a standardized protocol. Resident satisfaction was surveyed and knowledge acquisition tested. Data from the course were scored separately for CBL verses lectures and compared statistically. SETTING: Orthopedic surgery residency program at the University of California, San Francisco. PARTICIPANTS: Orthopedic surgery interns and residents (n = 35). RESULTS: No significant differences were measured in resident engagement (83% vs 85%, p = 0.664) or in knowledge acquisition (84% vs 78%, p = 0.056) in CBL verses lecture sessions, respectively. CBL sessions were judged equally valuable compared to lectures with high satisfaction rates across all survey measures. CONCLUSIONS: Residents demonstrated similar engagement and satisfaction with CBL compared to lectures with equivalent knowledge acquisition, suggesting both pedagogical methods are effective for a highly motivated group of learners.

Open Tibial Shaft Fractures: Treatment Patterns in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Open tibial shaft fractures are an important source of disability in Latin America. High-income countries (HICs) worldwide have established standardized treatment protocols for open tibial fractures, but less is known about their treatment in middle-income countries (MICs) in Latin America. This survey of Latin American orthopaedic surgeons characterizes open tibial fracture treatment patterns. METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons from 20 national orthopaedic societies throughout Latin America completed an online survey assessing their treatment of open tibial fractures. Demographic information was collected. Treatment patterns were queried according to 2 groupings of Gustilo-Anderson (GA) fracture types: treatment of type-I and type-II fractures (GA-I/II) and treatment of type-III fractures (GA-III). Treatment patterns were evaluated across 4 domains: antibiotic prophylaxis, irrigation and debridement, fracture stabilization, and wound management. Summary statistics were reported; analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were 616 survey participants from 20 Latin American countries (4 HICs and 16 MICs). Initial external fixation followed by staged internal fixation was preferred for GA-I/II (51.0%) and GA-III fractures (86.0%). Nearly one-third (31.5%) of GA-IIIB fractures did not receive a soft-tissue coverage procedure. Stratifying by country socioeconomic status, surgeons in MICs more commonly utilized delayed internal fixation for GA-I/II (53.3% versus 22.0%, p < 0.001) and GA-III fractures (94.0% versus 80.4%, p = 0.002). Surgeons in MICs more commonly used primary closure for GA-I/II (88.9% versus 62.8%, p < 0.001) and GA-III fractures (32.6% versus 9.8%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This survey reports Latin American orthopaedic surgeons' treatment patterns for open tibial shaft fractures. Surgeons in MICs reported higher delayed internal fixation use for all fracture types, while surgeons in HICs more routinely avoid primary closure. Soft-tissue coverage procedures are not performed in nearly one-third of GA-IIIB fractures because of a lack of operative personnel and training.

Orthopaedic Walk-In Clinics: A model to lessen the burden on Emergency Departments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: Operating duties for orthopaedic surgeons decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Emergency Department (ED) cases surged. Orthopaedic Walk-In Clinics (OWICs) were implemented to manage urgent musculoskeletal cases. METHODS: OWICs, organized in three days, were staffed by one orthopaedic surgeon, one triage person, three medical assistants, and a physician assistant/nurse practitioner. RESULTS: Musculoskeletal non-emergency ED referrals decreased by 40.6% (p < 0.001) after initiation of the OWICs, allowing optimal use of resources to address the COVID-19 surge. CONCLUSION: This paper describes the OWIC model and its preliminary impact. The OWICs could serve as a template for other orthopaedic departments during the pandemic.

Hip fracture care-Latin America.

Incidence rates of hip fractures in Latin America continue to rise. These fractures are associated with factors such as health, education, and socioeconomic status. Although there are many well-developed public and private healthcare systems available, the quality and consistency in the management of patients with hip fractures varies substantially. This article provides a summary review of national hip fracture care guidelines in 4 of the largest countries in Latin America (Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Argentina), describing national guidelines, audits, standard treatment approaches in each country and regional policies; with the goal of understanding and comparing the different guidelines, identifying the main problems in each country, learning from the policies of the other countries, and developing improvement projects.