"Early results after initiation of a rib fixation programme: A propensity score matched analysis"

Perioperative considerations for patients undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A narrative review

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has become an increasingly common management strategy for traumatic rib fractures. Although historically managed with supportive care, patients with multiple rib fractures and flail chest increasingly undergo SSRF, and so the anesthesiologist must be well-versed in the perioperative management and pain control for these patients, as controlling pain in this population is associated with decreased length of stay and improved outcomes. There are multiple modalities that can be used for both pain control and as part of the anesthetic plan in patients undergoing SSRF. This narrative review provides a comprehensive summary of anesthetic considerations for surgical rib fracture patients, covering the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. We describe an approach to the assessment of high-risk patients, analgesic and anesthetic techniques including emerging techniques within locoregional anesthesia, ventilation strategies, and potential complications. This review also identifies areas where additional research is needed to ensure optimal anesthetic management for patients undergoing SSRF.

A method for identifying the learning curve for the surgical stabilization of rib fractures

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is an accepted efficacious treatment modality for patients with severe chest wall injuries. Despite increased adoption of SSRF, surgical learning curves are unknown. We hypothesized intraoperative duration could define individual SSRF learning curves.

METHODS

Consecutive SSRF operations between January 2017 and December 2021 at a single institution were reviewed. Operative time, as measured from incision until skin closure, was evaluated by cumulative sum methodology using a range of acceptable "missteps" to determine the learning curves. Misstep was defined by extrapolation of accumulated operative time data.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients underwent SSRF by three surgeons during this retrospective review. Average operative times ranged from 135 minutes for two plates to 247 minutes for seven plates. Using polynomial regression of average operative times, 75 minutes for general procedural requirements plus 35 minutes per plate were derived as the anticipated operative times per procedure. Cumulative sum analyses using 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20% incident rates for not meeting expected operative times, or "missteps" were used. An institutional learning curve between 15 and 55 SSRF operations was identified assuming a 90% performance rate. An individual learning curve of 15 to 20 operations assuming a 90% performance rate was observed. After this period, operative times stabilized or decreased for surgeons A, B, and C.

CONCLUSION

The institutional and individual surgeon learning curves for SSRF appears to steadily improve after 15 to 20 operations using operative time as a surrogate for performance. The implementation of SSRF programs by trauma/acute care surgeons is feasible with an attainable learning curve.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

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.