Operative Stabilization of Chest Wall Trauma: Single-Center Report of Initial Management and Long-Term Outcome

Use of robotic C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in surgical stabilization of rib fractures

INTRODUCTION

The effectiveness of using intraoperative robotic C-arm cone-beam computerized tomography (CT) to locate rib fractures during surgery was compared to using pre-operative CT.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with multiple rib fracture and treated surgically in the hospital between January 2019 and September 2020 were included. The study included two groups of patients. One group had their rib fractures identified using pre-operative CT, while the other group had their fractures localized using intraoperative cone-beam CT during surgery. The operative time, blood loss, number of incisions, length of incision, duration of chest drains, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and duration of post-operation stays were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients received intraoperative cone-beam CT, while the remaining 18 patients only received pre-operative CT. Statistical analysis showed that the group treated with cone-beam CT had lower blood loss (p = 0.012), shorter incisions (p = 0.005), and better post-operation VAS scores (p = 0.027). There were also non-significant trends towards fewer incisions, shorter operation times, and shorter duration of chest drains in the group treated with cone-beam CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative localization of rib fracture sites with cone-beam CT is an effective method for rib fracture stabilization.

Revised Intensity Battle Score (RIBS): Development of a Clinical Score for Predicting Poor Outcomes After Rib Fractures

BACKGROUND

Patients with rib fractures have variable clinical courses and it is difficult to predict which patients will do poorly. Ideally this prediction would happen at the time of admission to facilitate effective triage. One scoring system devised to this end, is the Battle score. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Battle score as triage tool, and to re-tool it for performance in an inpatient trauma setting.

METHODS

A multivariate logistic regression model was trained on patients admitted to a level one trauma center with at least one rib fracture. A composite outcome was used to classify those who had poor outcomes. Eighteen candidate predictors were analyzed in univariate analysis, then the most promising fed into the logistic model until a triage score was built and internally validated by bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Of the 838 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 145 (17.3%) patients had a defined poor outcome. The relevant predictors included in the final scoring system were number of ribs fractured, chest tube, pulmonary contusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and Glasgow coma score. Age was not found to be predictive. This score was found to have higher fidelity in predicting poor outcomes than the original Battle score (AUROC .858 vs .649.).

DISCUSSION

An easy to calculate clinical scoring system was created to triage patients with rib fractures at the time of admission. Age may be of less importance than previously thought, while injury burden and history of lung disease may play a larger role.

Epidemiology of combined clavicle and rib fractures: a systematic review

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the incidence of combined clavicle and rib fractures and the association between these two injuries.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on the 14^th of August 2020. Outcome measures were incidence, hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit admission and length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), mortality, chest tube duration, Constant–Murley score, union and complications.

Results

Seven studies with a total of 71,572 patients were included, comprising five studies on epidemiology and two studies on treatment. Among blunt chest trauma patients, 18.6% had concomitant clavicle and rib fractures. The incidence of rib fractures in polytrauma patients with clavicle fractures was 56–60.6% versus 29% in patients without clavicle fractures. Vice versa, 14–18.8% of patients with multiple rib fractures had concomitant clavicle fractures compared to 7.1% in patients without multiple rib fractures. One study reported no complications after fixation of both injuries. Another study on treatment, reported shorter ILOS and less complications among operatively versus conservatively treated patients (5.4 ± 1.5 versus 21 ± 13.6 days).

Conclusion

Clavicle fractures and rib fractures are closely related in polytrauma patients and almost a fifth of all blunt chest trauma patients sustain both injuries. Definitive conclusions could not be drawn on treatment of the combined injury. Future research should further investigate indications and benefits of operative treatment of this injury.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00068-021-01701-4.

Quantifying the expense of deferring surgical stabilization of rib fractures: Operative management of rib fractures is associated with significantly lower charges

INTRODUCTION

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains a relatively controversial operation, which is often deferred because of concern about expense. The objective of this study was to determine the charges for SSRF versus medical management during index admission for rib fractures. We hypothesize that SSRF is associated with increased charge as compared with medical management.

METHODS

This is a retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database of patients with ≥3 displaced rib fractures admitted to a level 1 trauma center from 2010 to 2019. Patients who underwent SSRF (operative management [OM]) were compared with those managed medically (nonoperative management [NOM]). The total hospital charge between OM and NOM was compared with univariate analysis, followed by backward stepwise regression and mediation analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 279 patients were included. The majority (75%) were male, the median age was 54 years, and the median Injury Severity Scale score (ISS) was 21. A total of 182 patients underwent OM, whereas 97 underwent NOM. Compared with NOM, OM patients had a lower ISS (18 vs. 22, p = 0.004), less traumatic brain injury (14% vs. 31%, p = 0.0006), shorter length of stay (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.001), and decreased complications. After controlling for the differences between OM and NOM patients, OM was significantly associated with decreased charges (β = US $35,105, p = 0.01). Four other predictors, with management, explained 30% of the variance in charge (R = 0.30, p < 0.0001): scapular fracture (β = US $471,967, p < 0.0001), ISS per unit increase (β = US $4,139, p < 0.0001), long bone fracture (β = US $52,176, p = 0.01), bilateral rib fractures (β = US $34,392, p = 0.01), and Glasgow Coma Scale per unit decrease (β = US $17,164, p < 0.0001). The difference in charge between NOM and OM management was most strongly, although only partially, mediated by length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found that OM, as compared with NOM, was independently associated with decreased hospital charges. These data refute the prevailing notion that SSRF should be withheld because of concerns for increased cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic, level II.

State of Rib Fracture Care: A NTDB Review of Analgesic Management and Surgical Stabilization

Thoracic analgesia plays a key role in management and outcomes of rib fractures and can generally be broken down into oral or parenteral medication administration and regional analgesia. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) may be an underused resource in the management of rib fractures. This study describes recent trends in rib fracture management and outcomes. National Trauma Data Bank datasets from 2008 to 2014 were reviewed. Patients with three or more rib fractures were identified, and the frequencies of epidural analgesia (EA), other regional analgesia, and SSRF were analyzed. Those older than 65 years were more likely to be admitted to the ICU but had shorter ICU length of stay, lower intubation, and need for tracheostomy rates. In addition, those older than 65 years had about 2.5 times higher mortality (6.3% vs 2.6%, P < 0.001). EA was used in only 3 per cent of the population and more commonly in the older than 65 years group (3.7% vs 2.8%, P < 0.001). Regardless of age, SSRF was more commonly performed when compared with the placement of EA (5.8% vs 3%). This difference was even greater in the younger than 65 years group, where 7 per cent underwent SSRF. Utilization of EA remains low nationally. SSRF should be considered not only for chest wall stabilization but also as an analgesic modality in selected patients. A more complete accounting of analgesic care in rib fracture patients is needed to allow a more detailed analysis of analgesia for rib fracture–related pain to elucidate optimal treatment.

Recent advances in rib fracture fixation

As a means of treating rib fractures, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has been carried out sporadically for nearly 100 years. However, with the recent advent of new materials and technologies suitable for SSRF, the developmental rate and data concerning SSRF have increased greatly. The main manifestations of these advancements include the improvement of the preoperative localization method by combining CT scanning with three-dimensional reconstruction technology and ultrasound application to accurately locate fractures. The bone fracture plate is specifically used for rib fixation, and the intramedullary fixation devices and special SSRF tools make SSRF relatively simple. The application of 3D printing technology can accurately reproduce the anatomical shape of the fracture site under in vitro conditions before operation and combine with the internal fixation of chest wall, especially the thoracoscopy-assisted internal fixation of the chest wall, to achieve the minimally invasive internal fixation of the rib fracture. Absorbable internal fixation materials and thoracoscopic SSRF are considered the primary future research directions.

The ideal methods for the management of rib fractures

The clinical treatment choices for multiple rib fractures and flail chest are controversial. For example, among conservative treatment and surgical treatment, different studies have different conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore, early clinical research was mainly focused on the treatment of flail chest due to its severity. Nowadays, the treatment for multiple rib fractures patients without a flail chest is drawing an increased clinical interest. However, we are facing many challenges for the treatment of rib fractures, such as insufficient understanding of the available treatment options, lack of clinical research, lack of the internationally recognized clinical indication for the surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF), and the constant controversies and debates in terms of treatment options, surgery timing, and surgical techniques. All these challenges make it difficult to select the most appropriated clinical decisions for the proper treatment of a rib fracture, resulting in a seriously hindered development of novel rib fractures treatment choices. The concepts and ideas for traditional rib fractures treatment are relatively old, and even have some misunderstandings or errors. With the emergence of more and more research, the understandings of the rib fractures treatment has gradually improved; for example, the benefits provided to patients under the open reductions and internal fixation of fractures treatment. In this article, we outlined the new concepts in rib fractures treatment, which mainly included four parts, damage control, pain management, fixation selection, and quality of life. We hope these concepts help practitioners better manage rib fracture patients.