RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Traumatically injured combat casualties urgently need both blood and surgery. Forward Surgical Teams (FSTs) or Role 2 (R2) surgical teams were created to minimize the time-space distance from point of injury to damage control surgery. Our goal is to describe the use of blood products from a Split FST deployed to Green Village from July 2018 to April 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of a collection of patients treated by a single R2 was conducted following institutional regulatory approval. De-identified data were input into the study database and were then retrospectively reviewed for patients who presented to and received treatment at the R2 facility. RESULTS: Of the 470 total patients treated in 10 months: 226 (48%) received blood products and 132 (28%) underwent operative procedures. The patients were 98% male; 74% Host Nationals (HN), 24% North American Treaty Organization members. Mechanism of injury was 75% explosive and 98% penetrating. Documented Injury Severity Scores (n = 214) were: <9 (n = 57/27%), 9 to 15 (n = 34/16%), 16 to 25 (n = 64/30%), and >25 (n = 59/28%). In total 1,052 units of blood products were administered: whole blood (n = 495), red blood cells (n = 200), fresh frozen plasma (n = 109), and liquid plasma (n = 248). HN whole blood used was 337/495 (68%) units for 78 patients; walking blood bank was mobilized six times for HN patients. Of the patients seen, >99% who arrived with a pulse survived to be discharged to a higher level of care. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis describes blood usage associated with one high volume forward deployed operative team and demonstrates the vital importance of the R2 split FST to provide coalition forces with surgical care in proximity to the point of injury. Over time, the supply chain has improved with more component therapy available at R2s; however, the need for walking blood bank and innovative solutions to care for all casualties must be part of small team capabilities. Liquid plasma use should be expanded as soon as it is feasible.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To identify the factors considered most important by sports medicine fellowship applicants when deciding where to apply and ultimately interview. METHODS: An anonymous, electronic survey was distributed in 2018 via e-mail to orthopaedic surgery residents who applied to a specific orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program in 2015 and 2016. The survey included questions regarding the number of fellowships applications per respondent and the number of interviews they were offered and accepted. Questions regarding the application process were included. Participants also were asked to rank 9 criteria from most to least important (1 being most important; 9 being least important) when deciding where to apply or accept interviews. Each criterion's score reflects its average ranking among respondents. RESULTS: Among the 99 orthopaedic surgery residents applying to this fellowship program, 42 (42.4%) completed the survey. The factors considered most influential included variety and complexity of surgical exposure (2.16), autonomy (3.72), and reputation of faculty members (4.05). The factors considered least important were program size (7.21), job placement of past fellows (7.07), and geographic location (5.68). CONCLUSIONS: Variety and complexity of surgical exposure, operative autonomy, and program reputation were valued as the most important factors for orthopaedic surgery residents applying to sports medicine fellowship programs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The information obtained in this study may provide sports medicine fellowship programs and orthopaedic residents with a better understanding of factors that are considered to be important by sports medicine fellowship applicants. This will improve training for future sports medicine specialists, thus improving the care that they provide to their patients.