Attention to detail: A dedicated rib fracture consultation service leads to earlier operation and improved clinical outcomes

Rib Fixation for Multiple Rib Fractures: Healthcare Professionals Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to Clinical Implementation

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with improved respiratory symptoms and shorter intensive care admission in patients with flail chest. For multiple rib fractures, the benefit of SSRF remains a topic of debate. This study investigated barriers and facilitators of healthcare professionals to SSRF as treatment for multiple traumatic rib fractures.

METHODS

Dutch healthcare professionals were asked to complete an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators of SSRF. If ≥ 20% of participants responded negatively, the item was considered a barrier, and if ≥ 80% responded positively, the item was considered a facilitator.

RESULTS

Sixty-one healthcare professionals participated; 32 surgeons, 19 non-surgical physicians, and 10 residents. The median experience was 10 years (P₂₅-P₇₅ 4-12). Sixteen barriers and two facilitators for SSRF in multiple rib fractures were identified. Barriers included lack of knowledge, experience, evidence on (cost-)effectiveness, and the implication of more operations and higher medical costs. Facilitators were the assumption that SSRF alleviates respiratory problems and the feeling that surgeons are supported by colleagues for SSRF. Non-surgeons and residents reported more and several different barriers than surgeons (surgeons: 14; non-surgical physicians: 20; residents: 21; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For adequate implementation of SSRF in patients with multiple rib fractures, implementation strategies should address the identified barriers. Especially, improved clinical experience and scientific knowledge of healthcare professionals, and high-level evidence on the (cost-) effectiveness of SSRF potentially increase its use and acceptance.

Creating a Chest Wall Injury and Reconstructive program: A single center experience with rib fractures

BACKGROUND

New Chest Wall Injury and Reconstructive Centers (CWIRC) are emerging; this study aims to investigate the potential benefits of implementing a CWIRC at a single institution. We hypothesized that patients treated at CWIRC will have improved outcomes.

METHODS

We instituted a CWIRC in 2019 at our American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level One Trauma Center. We retrospectively compared trauma patients with rib fractures who presented to our center 18 months before (PRE-C) and 18 months after CWIRC implementation (POST-C). Outcomes measured included mortality, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU-LOS), readmission rates, and unplanned ICU admission.

RESULTS

There were 192 PRE-C patients, compared to 388 POST-C. The mortality in PRE-C was not significantly different compared to the POST-C group (11.46% vs 8.8%, p=0.308). There were also no differences in LOS, ICU-LOS, readmission, and unplanned ICU admission. ICU utilization was dramatically different: PRE-C 17.8% were admitted to ICU compared to 35.6% POST-C (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients admitted with rib fractures to our center nearly doubled after CWIRC establishment. Early diagnosis and triage led to significantly more admissions to higher levels of care. There are trends toward improved outcomes using practice management protocols, albeit with higher ICU utilization. Establishment of a CWIRC should be considered for level 1 ACS trauma centers and as utilization of established CWIRC protocols are increased, patients will have improved outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV STUDY TYPE: Retrospective chart review.

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.