A Quantitative and Qualitative Literature Analysis of the Orthopedic Surgeons’ Experience: Reflecting on 20 Years in the Global War on Terror

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction After over 20 years of war in the Middle East, orthopedic injuries have been among the most prevalent combat-related injuries, accounting for 14% of all surgical procedures at Role 2/3 (R2/R3) facilities according to the DoD Trauma Registry. To further delineate the role of the deployed orthopedic surgeon on the modern battlefield, a retrospective review was performed highlighting both quantitative and qualitative analysis factors associated with orthopedic surgical care during the war in the Middle East. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of orthopedic surgeons in the Middle East from 2001 to 2021. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using the PubMed and Embase databases using a two-reviewer strategy. Articles were compiled and reviewed using Covidence. Inclusion criteria included journal articles focusing on orthopedic injuries sustained during the Global War on Terror (GWoT) in an adult U.S. Military population. In the event of a conflict, a third author would determine the relevance of the article. For the remaining articles, a full-text review was conducted to extract relevant predetermined quantitative data, and the Delphi consensus method was then utilized to highlight relevant qualitative themes. Results The initial search yielded 1,226 potentially relevant articles. In all, 40 studies ultimately met the eligibility criteria. With the consultation of previously deployed orthopedic surgeons at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a retrospective thematic analysis of the 40 studies revealed five themes encompassing the orthopedic surgeons experience throughout GWoT. These themes include unique mechanisms of orthopedic injury compared to previous war injuries due to novel weaponry, differences in interventions depending on R2 versus R3 locations, differences in injuries from those seen in civilian settings, the maintained emphasis on humanitarian aspect of an orthopedic surgeon’s mission, and lastly relation of pre-deployment training to perceived deployed success of the orthopedic surgeons. From this extensive review, we found that explosive mechanisms of injury were greatly increased when compared to previous conflicts and were the etiology for the majority of orthopedic injuries sustained. With the increase of complex explosive injuries in the setting of improved body armor and overall survival, R2/3 facilities showed an increased demand for orthopedic intervention including debridement, amputations, and external fixation. Combat injuries sustained during the GWoT differ in the complications, management, and complexity when compared to civilian trauma. “Humanitarian” cases made up a significant number of operative cases for the deployed orthopedic surgeon. Lastly, heterogeneous training opportunities were available prior to deployment (fellowship, combat extremity surgical courses, and dedicated pre-deployment training), and the most commonly identified useful training was learning additional soft-tissue coverage techniques. Conclusion These major themes indicate an emphasis on pre-deployment training and the strategic positioning of orthopedic surgeons to reflect the changing landscape of musculoskeletal trauma care. Moving forward, these authors recommend analyzing the comfort and perceived capability of orthopedic surgeons in these unique military environments to best prepare for a changing operational format and the possibility of future peer–peer conflicts that will likely lead to a lack of medical evacuation and prolonged field care.