Mechanism of injury, injury patterns and associated injuries in patients operated for chest wall trauma

Favourable outcome in survivors of CPR-related chest wall injuries

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of studies focusing on long-term chest function after chest wall injury due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to investigate long-term pain, lung function, physical function, and fracture healing after manual or mechanical CPR and in patients with and without flail chest.

METHODS

Patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between 2013 and 2020 and transported to Sahlgrenska University Hospital were identified. Survivors who had undergone a computed tomography (CT) showing chest wall injury were contacted. Thirty-five patients answered a questionnaire regarding pain, physical function, and quality of life and 25 also attended a clinical examination to measure the respiratory and physical functions 3.9 (SD 1.7, min 2-max 8) years after the CPR. In addition, 22 patients underwent an additional CT scan to evaluate fracture healing.

RESULTS

The initial CT showed bilateral rib fractures in all but one patient and sternum fracture in 69 %. At the time of the follow-up none of the patients had persistent pain, however, two patients were experiencing local discomfort in the chest wall. Lung function and thoracic expansion were significantly lower compared to reference values (FVC 14 %, FEV1 18 %, PEF 10 % and thoracic expansion 63 %) (p < 0.05). Three of the patients had remaining unhealed injuries. Patients who had received mechanical CPR in additional to manual CPR had a lower peak expiratory flow (80 vs 98 % of predicted values) (p=0.030) =0.030) and those having flail chest had less range of motion in the thoracic spine (84 vs 127 % of predicted) (p = 0.019) otherwise the results were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

None of the survivors had long-term pain after CPR-related chest wall injuries. Despite decreased lower lung function and thoracic expansion, most patients had no limitations in physical mobility. Only minor differences were seen after manual vs. mechanical CPR or with and without flail chest.

Injury pattern and clinical outcome in patients with and without chest wall injury after cardiopulmonary resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), although lifesaving may cause chest wall injury (CWI) because of the physical force exerted on the thorax. The impact of CWI on clinical outcome in this patient group is unclear. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of CPR-related CWI and the secondary aim to study injury pattern, length of stay (LOS), and mortality in patients with and without CWI.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of adult patients who were admitted to our hospital due to cardiac arrest (CA) during 2012 to 2020. Patients were identified in the Swedish CPR Registry and those undergoing CT of the thorax within 2 weeks after CPR were included. Patients with traumatic CA, chest wall surgery prior or after CA were excluded. Demographic data, type and length of CPR, type of CWI, LOS on mechanical ventilator (MV), in intensive care unit (ICU) and in hospital (H), and mortality were studied.

RESULTS

Of 1,715 CA patients, 245 met the criteria for inclusion. The majority (79%) of the patients suffered from CWI. Chondral injuries and rib fractures were more common than sternum fractures (95% vs. 57%), and 14% had a radiological flail segment. Patients with CWI were older (66.5 ± 15.4 vs. 52.5 ± 15.2, p < 0.001). No difference was seen in MV-LOS (3 [0-43] vs. 3 [0-22]; p = 0.430), ICU-LOS (3 [0-48] vs. 3 [0-24]; p = 0.427), and H-LOS (5.5 [0-85] vs. 9.0 [1-53]; p = 0.306) in patients with or without CWI. Overall mortality within 30 days was higher with CWI (68% vs. 47%, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Chest wall injuries are common after CPR and 14% of patients had a flail segment on CT. Elderly patients have an increased risk of CWI, and a higher overall mortality is seen in patients with CWI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Evaluation of injury threshold from the number of rib fracture for predicting pulmonary injuries in blunt chest trauma

Background

Blunt chest trauma is a common presentation in emergency departments. The relationship between bone fractures and organ injuries has not been studied in detail. The purpose of this study was to examine the degree of external force represented by the number of rib fractures that causes lung injury in blunt chest trauma.

Patients and methods

This study was performed retrospectively using trauma patients who received medical examinations in a single university hospital emergency center between April 2015 and March 2020. We examined the association between the number of rib fractures and pulmonary damage using multivariable regression analysis and considered the relationship between rib fracture location and each type of lung injury.

Results

A total of 317 patients were included. The mean age was 63.1 years, 65.0% were male, and traffic accidents were the most common mechanism of injury (55.8%). The number of mean rib fractures was 4.0, and the mean Injury Severity Score was 11.3. The number of rib fractures was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary injuries: pulmonary contusion (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-1.48, p < 0.05); hemothorax (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.38, p < 0.05); pneumothorax (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30, p < 0.05); and hemopneumothorax (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01-1.28, p < 0.05). In addition, bilateral rib fractures were associated with fractures of the superior ribs more often and more severely, but were not associated with the occurrence of each type of lung injury.

Conclusion

The number of rib fractures was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary injuries. In addition, the type of pulmonary injury could be predicted from the number of rib fractures in blunt chest trauma.

Retrospective comparison of operative technique for chest wall injuries

BACKGROUND

Surgical management of chest wall injuries is a common procedure. However, operative techniques are diverse, and no universal guidelines exist. There is a lack of studies comparing the outcome with different operative techniques for chest wall surgery. The aim of this study was to compare hospital outcomes between patients operated for chest wall injuries with a conventional method with large incisions and often a thoracotomy or a minimally invasive, muscle sparing method.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out including patients ≥18 years operated for chest wall injuries 2010-2020. Patients were divided into two groups based on the surgery performed: conventional surgery (C-group) and minimally invasive surgery (M-group). Data on demographics, trauma, surgery, and outcomes were extracted from patient records. Primary outcome was length of stay on mechanical ventilator (MV-LOS). Secondary outcomes were length of stay in intensive care (ICU-LOS) and in hospital (H-LOS), and complications such as re-operation, incidence of empyema, tracheostomy, pneumonia, and mortality.

RESULTS

Of 311 included patients, 220 were in the C-group and 91 in the M-group. The groups were similar in demographics and injury pattern. MV-LOS was 0 (0-65) in the C-group vs 0 (0-34) in the M-group (p < 0.001). ICU-LOS and H-LOS were significantly shorter in the M-group as compared to the C-group (p < 0.001), however with a large overlap. Tracheostomy was performed in 22.3% of patients in the C-group vs 5.4% in the M-group (p < 0.001). Pneumonia was diagnosed in 32.3% of patients in the C-group vs 16.1% in the M-group (p = 0.004). In-hospital mortality was lower in the M-group compared to the C-group but there was no difference in mortality within 30 days or a year.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that a minimally invasive technique was favorable regarding clinical outcomes for patients operated for chest wall injuries.

Thoracic injuries in trauma patients: epidemiology and its influence on mortality

BACKGROUND

Thoracic injuries are common among trauma patients. Studies on trauma patients with thoracic injuries have reported considerable differences in morbidity and mortality, and there is limited research on comparison between trauma patients with and without thoracic injuries, particularly in the Scandinavian population. Thoracic injuries in trauma patients should be identified early and need special attention since the differences in injury patterns among patient population are important as they entail different treatment regimens and influence patient outcomes. The aim of the study was to describe the epidemiology of trauma patients with and without thoracic injuries and its influence on 30-day mortality.

METHODS

Patients were identified through the Karolinska Trauma Register. The Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) system was used to find patients with thoracic injuries. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate factors [age, gender, ASA class, GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), NISS (New Injury Severity Score) and thoracic injury] associated with 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 2397 patients were included. Of those, 768 patients (32%) had a thoracic injury. The mean (± SD, range) age of all patients (n = 2397) was 46 (20, 18-98) years, and the majority (n = 1709, 71%) of the patients were males. There was a greater proportion of patients with rib fractures among older (≥ 60 years) patients, whereas younger patients had a higher proportion of injuries to the internal thoracic organs. The 30-day mortality was 11% (n = 87) in patients with thoracic injury and 4.3% (n = 71) in patients without. After multivariable adjustment, a thoracic injury was found to be associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-3.0); as was age ≥ 60 years (OR 3.7, 95% CI 2.3-6.0), ASA class 3-4 (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.6), GCS 1-8 (OR 21, 95% CI 13-33) and NISS > 15 (OR 4.2, 2.4-7.3).

CONCLUSION

Thoracic injury was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality after adjustment for relevant key variables. We also found a difference in injury patterns with older patients having a higher proportion of rib fractures, whilst younger patients suffered more internal thoracic organ injuries.

The role of acute care surgeons in treating rib fractures-a retrospective cohort study from a single level I trauma center

BACKGROUND

Rib fractures are the most common thoracic injury in patients who sustained blunt trauma, and potentially life-threatening associated injuries are prevalent. Multi-disciplinary work-up is crucial to achieving a comprehensive understanding of these patients. The present study demonstrated the experience of an acute care surgery (ACS) model for rib fracture management from a single level I trauma center over 13 years.

METHODS

Data from patients diagnosed with acute rib fractures from January 2008 to December 2020 were collected from the trauma registry of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH). Information, including patient age, sex, injury mechanism, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) in different anatomic regions, injury severity score (ISS), index admission department, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), total admission LOS, mortality, and other characteristics of multiple rib fracture, were analyzed. Patients who received surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) were analyzed separately, and basic demographics and clinical outcomes were compared between acute care and thoracic surgeons.

RESULTS

A total of 5103 patients diagnosed with acute rib fracture were admitted via the emergency department (ED) of CGMH in the 13-year study period. The Department of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (TR) received the most patients (70.8%), and the Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (CTS) received only 3.1% of the total patients. SSRF was initiated in 2017, and TR performed fixation for 141 patients, while CTS operated for 16 patients. The basic demographics were similar between the two groups, and no significant differences were noted in the outcomes, including LOS, LCU LOS, length of indwelling chest tube, or complications. There was only one mortality in all SSRF patients, and the patient was from the CTS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute care surgeons provided good-quality care to rib fracture patients, whether SSRF or non-SSRF. Acute care surgeons also safely performed SSRF. Therefore, we propose that the ACS model may be an option for rib fracture management, depending on the deployment of staff in each institute.

Surgical Rib Fixation of Multiple Rib Fractures and Flail Chest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple rib fractures and flail chest are common in trauma patients and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. While rib fractures have historically been treated conservatively, there is increasing interest in the benefits of surgical fixation. However, strong evidence that supports surgical rib fixation and identifies the most appropriate patients for its application is currently sparse.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines was performed to identify all peer-reviewed papers that examined surgical compared to conservative management of rib fractures. We undertook a subgroup analysis to determine the specific effects of rib fracture type, age, the timing of fixation and study design on outcomes. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital and ICU stay, and secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation time, rates of pneumonia, and mortality.

RESULTS

Our search identified 45 papers in the systematic review, and 40 were included in the meta-analysis. There was a statistical benefit of surgical fixation compared to conservative management of rib fractures for length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation, mortality, pneumonia, and tracheostomy. The subgroup analysis identified surgical fixation was most favorable for patients with flail chest and those who underwent surgical fixation within 72 h. Patients over 60 y had a statistical benefit of conservative management on length of hospital stay and mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical fixation of flail and multiple rib fractures is associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality outcomes compared to conservative management. However, careful selection of patients is required for the appropriate application of surgical rib fixation.

Blunt Chest Trauma in Polytraumatized Patients: Predictive Factors for Urgent Thoracotomy

Purpose: Current guidelines on urgent thoracotomy of polytraumatized patients are based on data from perforating chest injuries. We aimed to identify predictive factors for urgent thoracotomy after chest-tube placement for blunt chest trauma in a civilian setting. Methods: Polytraumatized patients (Injury Severity Score ≥16) with blunt chest trauma, submitted to a level I trauma centre during a period of 12 years that received at least one chest tube were included. Trauma mechanism, chest-tube output, haemoglobin values, need for cellular blood products, coagulopathies, rib fracture pattern, thoracotomy, and mortality were retrospectively analysed. Results: 235 polytraumatized patients were included. Patients that received urgent thoracotomy (UT, n = 10) showed a higher mean chest-tube output within 24 h with a median (Mdn) of 3865 (IQR 2423–5156) mL compared to the group with no additional thoracic surgery (NT, n = 225) with Mdn 185 (IQR 50–463) mL (p < 0.001). The cut-off 24-h chest-tube output value for recommended thoracotomy was 1270 mL (ROC-Curve). UT showed an initial haemoglobin of Mdn 11.7 (IQR 9.2–14.3) g/dL and an INR value of Mdn 1.27 (IQR 1.11–1.69) as opposed to Mdn 12.3 (IQR 10–13.9) g/dL and Mdn 1.13 (IQR 1.05–1.34) in NT (haemoglobin: p = 0.786; INR: p = 0.215). There was an average number of 7.1(±3.4) rib fractures in UT and 6.7(±4.8) in NT (p = 0.649). Conclusions: Chest-tube output remains the single most important predictive factor for urgent thoracotomy also after blunt chest trauma. Patients with a chest-tube output of more than 1300 mL within 24 h after trauma should be considered for transfer to a level I trauma centre with standby thoracic surgery.