BackgroundEarthquakes in developing countries are devastating events. Orthopaedic surgeons play a key role in treating earthquake-related injuries to the extremities. We describe orthopaedic injury epidemiology to help guide response planning for earthquake-related disasters.MethodsSeveral databases were searched for articles reporting primary injury after major earthquakes from 1970 to June 2016. We used the following key words: “earthquake” AND “fracture” AND “injury” AND “orthopedic” AND “treatment” AND “epidemiology.” The initial search returned 528 articles with 253 excluded duplicates. The remaining 275 articles were screened using inclusion criteria, of which the main one was the description of precise anatomic location of fracture. This yielded 17 articles from which we analyzed the ratio of orthopaedic to nonorthopaedic injuries; orthopaedic injury location, type, and frequency; fracture injury characteristics (open vs. closed, single vs. multiple, and simple vs. comminuted); and first-line treatments.ResultsMost injuries requiring treatment after earthquakes (87%) were orthopaedic in nature. Nearly two-thirds of these injuries (65%) were fractures. The most common fracture locations were the tibia/fibula (27%), femur (17%), and foot/ankle (16%). Forty-two percent were multiple fractures, 22% were open, and 16% were comminuted. The most common treatment for orthopaedic injuries in the setting of earthquakes was debridement (33%).ConclusionsOrthopaedic surgeons play a critical role after earthquake disasters in the developing world. A strong understanding of orthopaedic injury epidemiology and treatment is critical to providing effective preparation and assistance in future earthquake disasters.

Orthopaedic procedures can affect patients' ability to perform activities of daily living, such as driving automobiles or other vehicles that require coordinated use of the upper and lower extremities. Many variables affect the time needed before a patient can drive competently after undergoing orthopaedic surgery to the extremities. These variables include whether the patient underwent upper or lower extremity surgery, the country in which the patient resides, whether the right or left lower extremity is involved, whether the dominant arm is involved, whether the extremity is in a cast or brace, whether the patient has adequate strength to control the steering wheel, and whether the patient is taking pain medication. The type and complexity of the procedure also influence the speed of return of driving ability. Few studies provide definitive data on driving ability after upper or lower extremity surgery. Patients should be counseled not to drive until they can control the steering wheel and the pedals competently and can drive well enough to prevent further harm to themselves or to others. This review discusses the limited recommendations in the literature regarding driving motorized vehicles after upper or lower extremity orthopaedic surgery.

Background: The impact of left-handedness on orthopaedic surgeons and trainees has not been well described. We investigated the prevalence and perceived impact of left-handedness among orthopaedic surgeons and trainees. Methods: We distributed a survey regarding handedness to active members of the American Orthopaedic Association and the Council of Orthopaedic Residency Directors affiliates, including department chairs, program directors, and residency and fellowship program coordinators. Program coordinators were asked to distribute the survey to their current residents and fellows. Results: Of 510 survey respondents, 78 (15%) were identified as left hand dominant (LHD). Regarding scalpel/cautery use, 64% of LHD respondents reported using their left hand primarily and 10% reported using their right hand primarily; 26% of LHD respondents described themselves as ambidextrous in scalpel/cautery use, compared with 4.7% of right hand dominant (RHD) respondents (p < 0.001). Regarding suturing, 53% of LHD respondents reported using their left hand primarily and 38% reported using their right hand primarily; 9.0% of LHD respondents described themselves as ambidextrous when suturing, compared with 1.9% of RHD respondents (p = 0.012). Only 5.1% of LHD respondents reported having received laterality-specific psychomotor training, whereas 17% perceived a need for such training during residency; RHD respondents reported similar rates. Ambidexterity in scalpel/cautery use or suturing among LHD respondents was not associated with the perception that their left-handedness was advantageous. LHD attending surgeons were more likely than LHD trainees to perceive their handedness as advantageous (p = 0.007). Conclusions: Fifteen percent of orthopaedic surgeons and trainees who responded to our survey were LHD. LHD respondents reported significantly higher rates of ambidexterity in both scalpel/cautery use and suturing compared with RHD respondents. Ambidexterity was not associated with a self-perception that left-handedness was advantageous. LHD-attending surgeons were significantly more likely than LHD residents/fellows to perceive their left-handedness as advantageous. There may be benefits to pairing LHD residents with LHD faculty surgeons early in their training to provide mentorship and insight regarding performing surgical procedures left handed. Level of Evidence: Level IV.