Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is associated with improved survival but increased acute respiratory distress syndrome

Surgical Rib Fixation is Associated With Lower Mortality in Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures

INTRODUCTION

Nonoperative management (NOM) along with supportive care has been the adopted approach for traumatic rib fractures; however, surgical approaches have emerged recently to treat this common pathology. Despite this, there are no guidelines for surgical rib fixation in patients with traumatic rib fractures.

METHODS

An institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study was performed at the Puerto Rico Trauma Hospital aiming to compare the outcomes and complications between patients with traumatic rib fractures who undergo surgical fixation and their counterparts with NOM. The study period comprised from January 2016 through July 2020. Outcomes were evaluated with negative binomial and logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were identified for the surgical rib fixation group, who were matched to 150 patients who received NOM. The majority of patients were male (91.5%), with a median (interquartile range) age of 53 (29) years. Concomitant chest injuries were significantly more prevalent in the operative group, such as flail segment (P < 0.001), number of fractures (P < 0.001), and displaced rib fractures (P < 0.001). Although hospital length of stay was 25% (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.54) longer in the surgical group, this intervention was associated with an 85% (95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.70) lower mortality rate when compared to conservative management.

CONCLUSIONS

Rib fixation may offer some benefits in selected patients with traumatic rib fractures, such as those with bilateral rib fractures, multiple displaced rib fractures, flail segment, and concomitant thoracic injuries. This study may serve as a guide for treatment strategy and patient selection regarding the surgical management of traumatic rib fractures.

Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients versus nonoperative controls treated by a multidisciplinary team in a single institution

Introduction

Despite promising evidence, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is not ubiquitously offered in all trauma centers. Some centers struggle with patient selection while some struggle due to surgeon comfort with the technique. To address this issue, our trauma center developed a multidisciplinary SSRF approach between orthopedic and trauma surgery.

Methods

This retrospective study compared 43 patients who underwent SSRF at a level 1 trauma center with 43 nonoperatively managed controls. Our study Indications were flail chest with >3 segments; non-flail with severe, bi-cortical displacement of >3 contiguous segments. Main outcome measures included mortality, ICU duration, hospital stay LOS, rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and ventilator days.

Results

Results of SSRF included decreases in mortality (2% vs 16.3%; p = 0.03) and in ICU duration. Patients with SSRF had a significantly shorter duration in the ICU than the nonoperative group (8.72 vs 14 days; p = 0.013) but a similar hospital duration (LOS mean, 12.81 vs 15.2; p = 0.29). Less patients in the SSRF group developed VAP but the difference was not significant (2% vs 14%, p = 0.055).

Discussion

SSRF patient outcomes supported prior evidence. The tandem approach had benefits as surgeons were able to leverage skills and expertise, increase collaboration between services, and complete more difficult reconstructions. Our experience may serve as a model for trauma centers interested in starting a new program or enhancing current service offerings.

Evaluation of surgical outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures: A single-centre propensity score matching study

Background

Rib fractures are the most common injuries in chest trauma. Compared with younger patients, elderly patients with rib fracture have a higher incidence of complications and mortality. A retrospective study was conducted to investigate the effect of internal fixation compared with conservative treatment on the outcome of rib fracture in elderly patients.

Material and methods

We used a 1:1 propensity score matching method to perform a retrospective analysis of 703 elderly patients with rib fractures treated in the Thoracic Surgery Department of Beijing Jishuitan Hospital between 2013 and 2020. After matching, the length of hospital stay, death, symptom relief and rib fracture healing were compared between the surgery and the control group.

Results

The study included 121 patients receiving SSRF in the surgery group and 121 patients receiving conservative treatment in the control group. The length of hospital stay in the surgery group was significantly longer than that in the conservative group (11.39d vs. 9.48d, p = 0.000). After 9 months of follow-up, the fracture healing rate in the surgery group was significantly higher than that in the control group (96.67% vs. 88.89%, p = 0.020). The fracture healing time (p = 0.000), improvement in pain score (p = 0.000) and duration of pain medication use (p = 0.000) were also significantly better in the surgery group than in the control group.

Conclusion

Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment can prolong hospital stay to some extent. However, it has the advantages of more rapid healing and lessened pain. For rib fractures in elderly individuals, surgical treatment is a safe and effective option under strict surgical indications and is recommended.

Lucky number 13: Association between center-specific chest wall stabilization volumes and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Chest wall stabilization (CWS) improves outcomes for patients with chest wall injury (CWI). We hypothesized that patients treated at centers with higher annual CWS volumes experience superior outcomes.

METHODS

A retrospective study of adults with acute CWI undergoing surgical stabilization of rib or sternal fractures within the 2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, excluding those with 24-hour mortality or any Abbreviated Injury Scale body region of six, was conducted. Hospitals were grouped in quartiles by annual CWS volume. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and unplanned intubation or intensive care unit readmission. Regression was controlled for age, sex, Injury Severity Scale, flail chest, medical comorbidities, and Abbreviated Injury Scale chest. We performed cut-point analysis and compared patient outcomes from high- and low-volume centers.

RESULTS

We included 3,207 patients undergoing CWS at 430 hospitals with annual volumes ranging from 1 to 66. There were no differences between groups in age, sex, or Injury Severity Scale. Patients in the highest volume quartile (Q4) experienced significantly lower rates of the primary outcome (Q4, 14%; Q3, 18.4%; Q2, 17.4%; Q1, 22.1%) and significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay. Q4 versus Q1 had lower adjusted odds of the primary outcome (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.80). An optimal cut point of 12.5 procedures annually was used to define high- and low-volume centers. Patients treated at high-volume centers experienced significantly lower rates of the primary composite outcome, in-hospital mortality, and deep venous thrombosis with shorter lengths of stay and higher rates of home discharge.

CONCLUSION

Center-specific CWS volume is associated with superior in-hospital patient outcomes. These findings support efforts to establish CWI centers of excellence. Further investigation should explore the impact of center-specific volume on patient-reported outcomes including pain and postdischarge quality of life.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.