Orthopedic Research and Reviews (May 2023)

The Outcome of Orthopedics Treatment of Lombok Earthquake Victim 2018: A Cohort of One-Year Follow-Up Study-Lesson Learned After Lombok Earthquake

  • Anshori F,
  • Kamal AF,
  • Prabowo Y,
  • Kekalih A,
  • Febrianto R,
  • Purnaning D,
  • Dilogo IH

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 15
pp. 91 – 103

Abstract

Read online

Fahmi Anshori,1 Achmad Fauzi Kamal,1 Yogi Prabowo,1 Aria Kekalih,2 Rudi Febrianto,3 Dyah Purnaning,3 Ismail Hadisoebroto Dilogo1 1Departement of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia-Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia; 2Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia; 3Orthopaedic and Traumatology Division, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine University of Mataram -Regional General Hospital of West Nusa Tenggara, Mataram, IndonesiaCorrespondence: Fahmi Anshori, Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jl. Diponegoro no. 71, Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia, Tel +62 81281710266, Email [email protected]: There was a magnitude 7 on the Richter scale earthquake on Lombok Island in 2018, causing more than 500 deaths. In the event of earthquakes, there is often an imbalance between overcrowding in hospitals and inadequate resources. The initial management of earthquake victims with musculoskeletal injuries is controversial, arguing over whether to utilize debridement, external or internal fixation, or conservative or operative treatment in an acute onset disaster situation. This study aims to determine the outcome of initial management after the 2018 Lombok earthquake, between immediate open-reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and Non-ORIF procedures after one year follow-up.Methods: This is a cohort study to evaluate radiological and clinical outcomes one year after orthopedic treatment in the Lombok earthquake 2018. The subjects were recruited from eight public health center and one hospital in Lombok in September 2019. We evaluate radiological outcomes (non/malunion and union) and clinical outcomes (infection and SF-36 score).Results: Based on 73 subjects, the ORIF group has a higher union rate than the non-ORIF group (31.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.021). Incidence of infection only appeared in the ORIF group (23.5%). Clinical outcome as measured by SF36 showed the ORIF group had a lower mean of general health (p = 0.042) and health change (p = 0.039) clinical outcomes than the non-ORIF group.Discussion: The most affected public group is the productive age with significant impact on social-economy. ORIF procedure is a major risk factor of infection in initial treatment after earthquake. Therefore, definitive operation with internal fixation is not recommended in the initial phase of a disaster. Damage Control Orthopedic (DCO) surgery protocol is the treatment of choice in acute disaster setting.Conclusion: The ORIF group had better radiological outcomes than the non-ORIF group. However the ORIF group had higher cases of infection and lower SF-36 than the non-ORIF group. Definitive treatment in acute onset disaster setting should be prevented.Keywords: ORIF/non-ORIF, infection, acute onset disaster, SF-36, union rate

Keywords