Publication: Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: A survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons
Issued Date
2018-06-07
Resource Type
ISSN
17549493
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85048104344
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Patient Safety in Surgery. Vol.12, No.1 (2018)
Suggested Citation
Sorawut Thamyongkit, Malick Bachabi, John M. Thompson, Babar Shafiq, Erik A. Hasenboehler Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: A survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Patient Safety in Surgery. Vol.12, No.1 (2018). doi:10.1186/s13037-018-0156-2 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46591
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: A survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2018 The Author(s). Background: The increasing financial burden of orthopaedic implants on our health care system has prompted cost-control measures, such as implant reprocessing. The purpose of this study was to describe the current usage by orthopaedic trauma surgeons of reprocessed external fixators (EFs) for treatment of complex fractures. Methods: A 16-question survey about use and perceptions of reprocessed EFs was distributed to 894 Orthopaedic Trauma Association members between August 2016 and June 2017 using a web-based survey system. Results: The authors received 243 responses (27%). Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported using reprocessed EFs. Nonprofit hospitals used reprocessed EFs more commonly than did for-profit hospitals (41% vs 15%, P = .0004). Eighty-seven percent of respondents believed reprocessing could be cost-effective. The most common reason (32%) for not using reprocessed EFs was coordination/logistics of reprocessing. Concern about litigation was also reported as a main reason for not using (20%) or having recently stopped using (21%) reprocessed EFs. Conclusions: Many orthopaedic traumatologists are interested in the reprocessing of EF components but few have reprocessing systems in place at their institutions. A major barrier to implementation is concern about litigation, which is likely unwarranted on the basis of Food and Drug Administration approval and a lack of previous litigation. Reprocessing by the original device manufacturers has yielded substantial savings at our institution and is an example of the cost savings that can be expected when implementing an EF reprocessing system.