The Military Orthopedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network: A Solution for Improving Musculoskeletal Care in the Military Health System.

INTRODUCTION: Musculoskeletal injuries are an endemic amongst U.S. Military Service Members and significantly strain the Department of Defense's Military Health System. The Military Health System aims to provide Service Members, military retirees, and their families the right care at the right time. The Military Orthopedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network (MOTION) captures the data that can optimize musculoskeletal care within the Military Health System. This report provides MOTION structural framework and highlights how it can be used to optimize musculoskeletal care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MOTION established an internet-based data capture system, the MOTION Musculoskeletal Data Portal. All adult Military Health System patients who undergo orthopedic surgery are eligible for entry into the database. All data are collected as routine standard of care, with patients and orthopedic surgeons inputting validated global and condition-specific patient reported outcomes and operative case data, respectively. Patients have the option to consent to allow their standard of care data to be utilized within an institutional review board approved observational research study. MOTION data can be merged with other existing data systems (e.g., electronic medical record) to develop a comprehensive dataset of relevant information. In pursuit of enhancing musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes MOTION aims to: (1) identify factors which predict favorable outcomes; (2) develop models which inform the surgeon and military commanders if patients are behind, on, or ahead of schedule for their targeted return-to-duty/activity; and (3) develop predictive models to better inform patients and surgeons of the likelihood of a positive outcome for various treatment options to enhance patient counseling and expectation management. RESULTS: This is a protocol article describing the intent and methodology for MOTION; thus, to date, there are no results to report. CONCLUSIONS: MOTION was established to capture the data that are necessary to improve military medical readiness and optimize medical resource utilization through the systematic evaluation of short- and long-term musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes. The systematic enhancement of musculoskeletal injury care through data analyses aligns with the National Defense Authorization Act (2017) and Defense Health Agency's Quadruple Aim, which emphasizes optimizing healthcare delivery and Service Member medical readiness. This transformative approach to musculoskeletal care can be applied across disciplines within the Military Health System.

A High-Sensitivity International Knee Documentation Committee Survey Index From the PROMIS System: The Next-Generation Patient-Reported Outcome for a Knee Injury Population.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure progression and quality of care. While legacy PROs such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey are well-validated, a lengthy PRO creates a time burden on patients, decreasing adherence. In recent years, PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference surveys were developed as computer adaptive tests, reducing time to completion. Previous studies have examined correlation between legacy PROs and PROMIS; however, no studies have developed effective prediction models utilizing PROMIS to create an IKDC index. While the IKDC is the standard knee PRO, computer adaptive PROs offer numerous practical advantages. PURPOSE: To develop a nonlinear predictive model utilizing PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference to estimate IKDC survey scores and examine algorithm sensitivity and validity. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: The MOTION (Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network) database is a prospectively collected repository of PROs and intraoperative variables. Patients undergoing knee surgery completed the IKDC and PROMIS surveys at varying time points. Nonlinear multivariable predictive models using Gaussian and beta distributions were created to establish an IKDC index score, which was then validated using leave-one-out techniques and minimal clinically important difference analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1011 patients completed the IKDC and PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference, providing 1618 complete observations. The algorithms for the Gaussian and beta distribution were validated to predict the IKDC (Pearson = 0.84-0.86; R2 = 0.71-0.74; root mean square error = 9.3-10.0). CONCLUSION: The publicly available predictive models can approximate the IKDC score. The results can be used to compare PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference against historical IKDC scores by creating an IKDC index score. Serial use of the IKDC index allows for a lower minimal clinically important difference than the conventional IKDC. PROMIS can be substituted to reduce patient burden, increase completion rates, and produce orthopaedic-specific survey analogs.

Spinal column injuries among Americans in the global war on terrorism.

BACKGROUND: While combat spinal injuries have been documented since the fourth century BC, a comprehensive analysis of such injuries has not been performed for any American military conflict. Recent literature has suggested that spinal injuries account for substantial disability in wounded service members. METHODS: The Joint Theater Trauma Registry was queried to identify all American military personnel who sustained injuries to the back, spinal column, and/or spinal cord in Iraq or Afghanistan from October 2001 to December 2009. Spinal injuries were categorized according to anatomic location, neurological involvement, mechanism of injury, and concomitant wounds. RESULTS: Of 10,979 evacuated combat casualties, 598 (5.45%) sustained 2101 spinal injuries. Explosions accounted for 56% of spinal injuries, motor vehicle collisions for 29%, and gunshots for 15%. Ninety-two percent of all injuries were fractures, with transverse process, compression, and burst fractures the most common. Spinal cord injuries were present in 17% (104) of the 598 patients. Concomitant injuries frequently occurred in the abdomen, chest, head, and face. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of spine trauma sustained by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan is higher than that reported for previous conflicts, and the nature of these injuries may be similar to those in severely injured civilians. Further research into optimal management and rehabilitation is critical for military service members and severely injured civilians with spine trauma.

Are spine injuries sustained in battle truly different?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The severity and prognosis of combat-related injuries to the spine and spine injuries sustained unrelated to direct combat have not been previously compared. Differences may have implications on tactics, treatment strategies, and directions for future research. PURPOSE: Compare the severity and prognosis of battle and nonbattle injuries to the spine. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: American military personnel who were injured in a combat zone and whose medical data were abstracted in the Joint Theater Trauma Registry (JTTR). METHODS: The JTTR was queried using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify all individuals who sustained battle and nonbattle injuries to the neck, back, spinal column, or spinal cord in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom from October 2001 to December 2009. Medical records of all identified servicemembers were individually reviewed. Demographic information, including sex, age, military rank, date of injury, and final disposition, was obtained for all patients. Spinal injuries were categorized according to anatomic location, associated neurologic involvement, precipitating mechanism of injury (MOI), and concomitant wounds. These data points were compared for the groups battle spine injuries (BSIs) and nonbattle spine injuries (NBSIs). RESULTS: Five hundred two servicemembers sustained a total of 1,834 battle injuries to the spinal column, including 1,687 fractures (92%), compared with 92 servicemembers sustaining 267 nonbattle spinal column injuries, with 241 (90%) fractures. Ninety-one BSI servicemembers (18% of patients) sustained spinal cord injuries (SCIs) with 41 (45%) complete SCIs, compared with 13 (14% of patients) nonbattle SCIs with six (46.2%) complete injuries (p=.92). The reported MOI for 335 BSI servicemembers (66.7%) was an explosion compared with one NBSI explosive injury. Eighty-four patients (17%) sustained gunshot wounds (GSWs) in battle compared with five (5.2%) nonbattle GSWs. Fifteen patients (3.0%) sustained a battle-related fall compared with 29 (30%) nonbattle-related falls. Battle spine injury servicemembers underwent significantly higher rates of surgical interventions (p<.0001), were injured by high-energy injury mechanisms at a significantly greater rate (p<.0001), and demonstrated a trend toward lower neurologic recovery rates after SCI (p=.16). CONCLUSIONS: Battle spine injury and NBSI are separate entities that may ultimately have disparate long-term prognoses. Nonbattle spine injury patients, although having similar MOIs compared with civilian spinal trauma, maintain a different patient demographic. Further research must be directed at accurately quantifying the long-term disabilities of all spine injuries sustained in a combat theater, whether they are the result of battle or not.