ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2020
Prospective Study of Military Special Operations Medical Personnel and Lower Extremity Fracture Immobilization in an Austere Environment.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of resting splints and elastic bandages in adult lower extremity soft tissue trauma: A retrospective cohort study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Battlefield exoskeleton usability for lower-limb trauma in prolonged field care: A mixed-methods approach.Wearable technologies · 2026Article
- Exoskeletal solutions to enable mobility with a lower leg fracture in austere environments.Wearable technologies · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustere fracture immobilization equipment and techniques are often overlooked, with few studies critically evaluating the process. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current austere splinting techniques and equipment used for lower extremity fractures while field testing a new 1-step spray-on foam splint.
methodsThis is a prospective analysis of austere splinting techniques. A cadaveric model with a distal third tibia-fibula fracture was used for testing. The specimens were placed in an austere environment and participants immobilized the injury with standard equipment (structural aluminum malleable [SAM] splint, 6-in. ACE wrap) while being critically evaluated. The specimens were also immobilized with a 1-step in-situ foam splint.
resultsTwenty-one military Special Operations medical personnel participated. Each participant was observed and scored by a single orthopedic foot and ankle surgeon using a Likert scale based on 10 splinting criteria. Standard splinting resulted in an average score of 32.2 (range, 5-50), with significant deficiencies in fracture traction (1/5), fracture motion (2.9/5), protection of neurovascular structures (3/5), and soft tissue manipulation (3/5). The average time to completion was 203 seconds, with 1 splint failure. The spray-on foam splinting technique yielded a significantly higher score of 48.5 while completing the task significantly faster (68 seconds), with no failures.
conclusionSpecial Operations medical personnel demonstrated success in immobilizing a complex fracture with standard techniques in a cadaveric model. However, testing demonstrated the inherent inability of the SAM splint to provide longitudinal traction while simultaneously allowing excessive fracture motion and potential injury to the soft tissues. In comparison, our spray-on foam proof of concept technique eliminated motion by allowing an in situ application with adequate rigidity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This experiment included a likert scale to critically evaluate splinting techniques and equipment. It reliably tested standard splinting equipment and a 1-step in-situ foam splint for distal third tibia-fibula fractures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.