Fracture Management by Traditional Bonesetters: A Tertiary Care Hospital Based Observational Study

Vol 03 | January 2022 | page: 23-27 | Krutibash Subudhi


Authors: Krutibash Subudhi [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.

Address of Correspondence

Dr. Krutibash Subudhi,
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, Odisha, India.


Background: Fracture of bone is a persistent problem encountered in orthopaedic practice. The management of fracture of bone depends on reduction and immobility at the fracture site. The traditional bone setters formulate their own methods and practices for the management of fracture. This age-old art has not only survived since ages but also flourished with time and moreover to our surprise is challenging modern orthopaedic science in many ways.
Aim of study: To find out various outcomes of fracture management by traditional bonesetters and the possible reason for their high patronage.
Methods: Present study was conducted on patients with some kind of prior treatment received from TBS. The detailed history was collected about age, sex, socioeconomic condition, education, habit and habitats from each patient. Each case was subjected to detailed clinical and radiological examinations to evaluate the outcomes of the interventions of TBSs.
Results: One hundred and fifty patients in the age group of (1–70) years were included in the study out of which 103 (69%) are male and 47 (31%) are females. 33% belong to age group of 30-45 years and 54% are of literate and fair socio-economic status. Malunion is the predominant form of presentation with 69 cases (46%) followed by non-union in 30 (20%) cases. 41 cases (28%) presented with impending ischemia at initial stages of treatment. Only 9 cases (6%) were presented with chronic osteomyelitis and infected non-union. Eventually 7 cases were ended with gangrene and amputation. Cost of surgery was the major cause (43%) followed by fear of surgery (23%) was observed for non-acceptance of modern orthopaedic system.
Conclusion: The results in our study vindicate the fact that TBS play a major role in providing health care to the fracture patients. Lack of basic knowledge and aversion to referral system by TBS is responsible for complications. So, creating public awareness and integrating TBS in the healthcare system through proper training and due legislation seems to be the apt solution to combat this menace.
Keywords: Traditional Bone Setters, chronic osteomylitis, Malunion and nonunion


1. D B .Chottopadhya. “Science & Society in ancient India” 1977: 35-45.
2. Eshete M. The prevention of traditional bone setter’s gangrene. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:102–103.
3. Agarwal A, Agarwal R. The Practice and Tradition of Bonesetting. Education forHealth. 2010; 23 (1) : 1-8.
4. Bickler SW, Sanno-Duanda B. Bone setter’s gangrene. J Pediatr Surg. 2000 Oct; 35(10):1431-3.
5. Nwachukwu BU, Okwesili IC, Harris MB, Katz JN. Traditional bonesetters and contemporary orthopaedic fracture care in a developing nation: Historical aspects, contemporary status and future directions. Open Orthop J. 2011;5:20–26.
6. OlaOlorun DA, Oladiran IO, Adeniran A. Complications of fracture treatment by traditional bonesetters in Southwest Nigeria. FamPract. 2001;18:635–637.
7. Umaru RH, Gali BM and Ali N. Role of inappropriate traditional Splintage in limb amputation in Maiduguni Nigeria. Journal of African Medicine.2004;3(3): 138-140.
8. Oginni LM. The use of Traditional fracture splint for bone setting. Nig Medical Practitioner 1992; 24 (3): 49 – 51.
9. Onuminya JE, Onabowale BO, Obekpa PO, Ihezue CH. Traditional Bonesetter’s Gangrene. International Orthopedics (SICOT) (1999); 23:111-112.
10. Khan AA. Treatment of Fractures of Long Bone by Cast Brace Method. Journal Of Bangladesh Ortho. Society 1981; 1(1): 19- 22.
11. Omololu B, Ogunlade S and Alonge T. The Complications seen from the treatment by traditional bone setters. WAJM. 2002; 21(4) : 335-337.
12. Chowdury M, Khandkher H, Ahsan, K and Mostafa D. Complications of Fracture Treatment by Traditional Bonesetters at Dinajpur, Dinajpur Medical Journal. 2011; 4 (1):15-19.
13. Nwadiaro H, Nwadiaro P, Kidmas, A, Ozoilo K. Outcome of traditional bone setting in the Middle belt of Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research. 2006; 8(1) :44-48.
14. Thanni LO. Factors influencing patronage of traditional bone setters. West AfrJ Med. 2000;19(3):220-4.
15. Thanni, L., Tade, A. Extremity amputation in Nigeria a review of indications and mortality.The Surgeon 2007; Volume 5 (4): 213-217.
16. Ikpeme IA, Udosen AM, Okereke, Okpa I. Patients Perception of traditional Bones Setting in Calabar. Port Harcourt Med J. 2007;1:104-7.
17. Dada A, Giwa SO, Yinusa W, Ugbeye M, Gbadegesin S: Complications of Treatment of Musculoskeletal Injuries byBone Setters, WAJM: 2009; 28(i) :43 – 47.
18. World health organization. Promoting the role of traditional medicine in health systems: a strategy for the African region (2001-2010); World health organization 2000; (document reference AFR/ RC50/ Doc.9/R).

How to Cite this Article: Subudhi K | Fracture Management by Traditional Bonesetters: A Tertiary Care Hospital Based Observational Study | Odisha Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma | January 2022; 03: 23-27.

(Abstract Text HTML)      (Download PDF)