Background The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery established the Three Delays framework, categorising delays in accessing timely surgical care into delays in seeking care (First Delay), reaching care (Second Delay), and receiving care (Third Delay). Globally, knowledge gaps regarding delays for fracture care, and the lack of large prospective studies informed the rationale for our international observational study. We investigated delays in hospital admission as a surrogate for accessing timely fracture care and explored factors associated with delayed hospital admission. MethodsIn this prospective observational substudy of the ongoing International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care (INORMUS), we enrolled patients with fracture across 49 hospitals in 18 low-income and middle-income countries, categorised into the regions of China, Africa, India, south and east Asia, and Latin America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had been admitted to a hospital within 3 months of sustaining an orthopaedic trauma. We collected demographic injury data and time to hospital admission. Our primary outcome was the number of patients with open and closed fractures who were delayed in their admission to a treating hospital. Delays for patients with open fractures were defined as being more than 2 h from the time of injury (in accordance with the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery) and for those with closed fractures as being a delay of more than 24 h. Secondary outcomes were reasons for delay for all patients with either open or closed fractures who were delayed for more than 24 h. We did logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors of delays of more than 2 h in patients with open fractures and delays of more than 24 h in patients with closed fractures. Logistic regressions were adjusted for region, age, employment, urban living, health insurance, interfacility referral, method of transportation, number of fractures, mechanism of injury, and fracture location. We further calculated adjusted relative risk (RR) from adjusted odds ratios, adjusted for the same variables. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150980, and is ongoing. Findings Between April 3, 2014, and May 10, 2019, we enrolled 31 255 patients with fractures, with a median age of 45 years (IQR 31-62), of whom 19 937 (63•8%) were men, and 14 524 (46•5%) had lower limb fractures, making them the most common fractures. Of 5256 patients with open fractures, 3778 (71•9%) were not admitted to hospital within 2 h. Of 25 999 patients with closed fractures, 7141 (27•5%) were delayed by more than 24 h. Of all regions, Latin America had the greatest proportions of patients with delays (173 [88•7%] of 195 patients with open fractures; 426 [44•7%] of 952 with closed fractures). Among patients delayed by more than 24 h, the most common reason for delays were interfacility referrals (3755 [47•7%] of 7875) and Third Delays (cumulatively interfacility referral and delay in emergency department: 3974 [50•5%]), while Second Delays ...

Introduction: Prophylactic surgical drains are commonly used in Nigeria following intramedullary nailing (IMN) of long bone diaphyseal fractures. However, evidence in the literature suggests that drains do not confer any benefit and predispose clean wounds to infection. This study compares outcomes between patients treated with and without prophylactic surgical drainage following diaphyseal long bone fractures treated with IMN. Methods: A prospective cohort study with randomization was conducted at a tertiary referral center in Enugu, Nigeria. Investigators included skeletally mature patients with diaphyseal long bone (femur, tibia, humerus) fractures treated with SIGN IMN. Patients followed-up at 5, 14, and 30 days post-operatively. The primary outcome was surgical site infection (SSI) rate. Secondary outcomes included post-operative pain at 6 and 12 h, need for blood transfusion, wound characteristics (swelling, ecchymosis, and gaping), need for dressing changes, and length of hospital stay. Results: Of the enrolled patients, 76 (96%) of 79 completed 30-day follow-up. SSI rate was associated with patients who received a prophylactic drain versus those who did not (23.7% vs. 10.5%, p = 0.007). There were no significant differences in transfusion need (p = 0.22), wound swelling (p = 0.74), wound ecchymosis (p = 1.00), wound gaping (p = 1.00), dressing change need (p = 0.31), post-operative pain at 6 h (p = 0.25) or 12 h (p = 0.57), or length of stay (p = 0.95). Discussion: Surgical drain placement following IMN of diaphyseal long bone fractures is associated with a significantly higher risk of SSI. Reducing surgical drain use following orthopaedic injuries in lower resource settings may translate to reduced infection rates.

We report the uncommon case of knee arthroscopic removal of multiple bullet pellets. A 25-year-old male professional footballer was admitted with left knee swelling, pain, and limitation of movement following a gunshot injury. Radiographs revealed multiple pellets in and around the left knee, each measuring about 5 mm in diameter. There were several pellets in the subcutaneous, intramuscular, and intra-articular parts of the left knee. The pellets were metallic, contraindicating magnetic resonance imaging to assess intra articular structures. He was booked for an urgent knee arthroscopy and the pellets were retrieved, and the other vital intra articular structures were examined. Three 5 mm diameter spherical bullet pellets were removed from the joint cavity. The synovial membrane was debrided, and the knee lavaged. Recovery was satisfactory with no complications. The patient was discharged to physiotherapy and followed up at 3 and 6 months after surgery. Foreign bodies in the knee are not uncommon; however, the presence of multiple bullet pellets is rare, especially in the index case of a sportsman. Its removal can be challenging, even arthroscopically. Such a procedure can result in severe complications, such as infections and joint deformities. The decision to use the arthroscopic approach requires careful deliberation regarding the status of the patient vis-a-vis the available skill and experience of the managing team.