Publication:
Use of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: A survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeons

dc.contributor.authorSorawut Thamyongkiten_US
dc.contributor.authorMalick Bachabien_US
dc.contributor.authorJohn M. Thompsonen_US
dc.contributor.authorBabar Shafiqen_US
dc.contributor.authorErik A. Hasenboehleren_US
dc.contributor.otherJohns Hopkins Bayview Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-28T06:04:28Z
dc.date.available2019-08-28T06:04:28Z
dc.date.issued2018-06-07en_US
dc.description.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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationPatient Safety in Surgery. Vol.12, No.1 (2018)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13037-018-0156-2en_US
dc.identifier.issn17549493en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85048104344en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/46591
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85048104344&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleUse of reprocessed external fixators in orthopaedic surgery: A survey of 243 orthopaedic trauma surgeonsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85048104344&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections