- 10/22 participants had not previously attended an ex-fix course. - Pre- vs. post-course score (out of 4) = 2.5 vs. 3.7 (p<
0.001, Mann-Whitney U) - All participants Teaching Hospitals vs. DGHs: - Pre-course scores = 2.9 vs. 1.9 (p<
0.01) - Post-course scores = 3.6 vs. 3.8 (not significant) - Pre-course scores by grade of participant: - SHO vs. Senior SHO = 2.6 vs. 1.5 (p<
0.05) - SpR vs. Senior SHO = 3.0 vs. 1.5 (p<
0.05) - SpR vs. SHO = 3.0 vs. 2.6 (not significant) - Post-course scores by grade: - SpR vs. Senior SHO vs. SHO = 4.0 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.3 (not significant).
Participation in a simple ex-fix course improves knowledge of ex-fix design. Retention of knowledge must be reassessed after several months. This course fills a gap in education of basic external fixation for orthopaedic trainees. We recommend every region with a tertiary referral system for complex trauma utilises this course.
- Ex-fix trays per unit (all manufacturers) mean = 4.14 (1–9) - Majority equipment in unit = Orthofix (11), Hoffman II (5), AO (1) - 12/15 SpRs reported insufficient ex-fix equipment for pelvis, 4 long bones and bridging knees (Damage Control Orthopaedics = DCO) - 7/15 SpRs reported insufficient ex-fix for 4 long bones/ bridging knees
- mean year of training = 2.2 - Experience: Generic trauma course (9) Specific ExFix (6) Manufacturer (9) - 14/15 would value specific regional ex-fix course - DCO patient scenario SpR unable to fix -lack of knowledge vs. lack of equipment 7/15 vs. 12/15 p<
0.01
- 7/31 aware of transfer protocol - 31/31 want referral routes clearly identified - 12/15 would value regular regional audit
All trainees had attended ex-fix teaching. Those who had only attended generic courses were less confident in DCO scenarios. Most favoured a specific regional ex-fix course. Tertiary care protocols have been distributed, but many units are unaware of their existence. A regular regional audit of trauma referrals would provide protocol reinforcement and opportunity for feedback.
- 97 grade III open fractures in 95 patients - 64 required temporary spanning ex-fix: - 23 applied at trauma centre / 41 at DGH - 14/64 ex-fixes required revision (prior to definitive Ilizarov): - poor plastics access (6) / instability (2) /both (6) - All 14 revised were applied in a DGH, i.e. 14/41 DGH ex-fix needed revision (34%) - Ex fixes revised after application at trauma centre vs. DGH = 0/23 vs. 14/41, p<
0.01 X2 - Revision of Hoffman hybrid vs. monolateral ex fix = 4/4 vs. 10/60 p<
0.001 X2 - Non modular system (Orthofix) vs. modular systems (Hoffman II / AO) = 7/17 vs. 0/39 (p<
0.001)
All Hoffman hybrids needed revision, due to instability and plastics access. Significantly more non modular (Orthofix) ex-fixes required revision compared to modular, for poor plastics access. We recommend modular external fixator application (Hoffman II or AO) to avoid problems with temporary external fixation of open tibial fractures. Hybrid temporary external fixation should be abandoned in such injuries.