Abstract
Over 200 high-velocity missile injuries treated in a low-technology environment were audited under the aegis of the International Committee of the Red Cross Hospitals in Afghanistan and Northern Kenya.
Femoral fractures were treated either by traction or external fixation using a uniaxial frame. The results showed that patients treated by external fixation remained in hospital longer than those treated on traction. The positional outcome was identical in both groups. In tibial fractures the external fixator was only of extra benefit in those of the lower third when compared with simple plaster slabs unless more complex procedures such as flaps or vascular repair were to be performed. In complex humeral fractures, external fixation resulted in long stays in hospital and a large number of interventions when compared with simple treatment in a sling.
We conclude therefore that in an environment where facilities are limited and surgeons have only general experience very careful initial wound excision is the most important factor determining outcome. The application of complex holding techniques was generally inappropriate.
