Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Hardware Failure in Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: Who, What, When, Where, and Why?

Age-Neutral Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: Breaking the Ageism Barrier

INTRODUCTION

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with lower rates of mortality and fewer complications. This study evaluates whether the decision to undergo SSRF is associated with age, race, ethnicity, and insurance status and assesses associated clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients ≥45 y old with rib fractures who underwent SSRF in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program from 2016 to 2020. Race, ethnicity, and insurance statuses were collected. Age in years was dichotomized into two groups: 45-64 and 65+. Outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, unplanned endotracheal intubation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, in-hospital mortality, failure to rescue (FTR) after major complications, and FTR after respiratory complications. Logistic regression models were fit to evaluate outcomes, controlling for gender, body mass index, Injury Severity Score, flail chest, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, and smoking.

RESULTS

Two thousand eight hundred thirty-nine patients aged 45-64 and 1828 patients aged 65+ underwent SSRF. No significant difference in clinical outcomes was noted between these groups. Analysis showed that the association of SSRF with ventilator-associated pneumonia, unplanned intubation, acute respiratory distress syndrome, in-hospital mortality, FTR after a major complication, or FTR after a respiratory complication did not vary by age (P > 0.05). Black (odds ratio [OR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.77; P < 0.001), Hispanic (OR 0.80; 95% CI: 0.71-0.91; P < 0.001), and Medicaid (OR = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.76-0.95; P = 0.005) patients were less likely to receive SSRF.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences in clinical outcomes were measured between adults aged 45-64 and ≥65 who underwent SSRF. Older age should not preclude patients from receiving SSRF. Further work is needed to improve underutilization in Black, Hispanic and Medicaid patients.

[Complications after conservative vs. operative treatment of severe thoracic trauma]

BACKGROUND

Thoracic trauma is a frequent injury in the routine treatment of injured patients. Due to the increasing demographic changes a further increase is to be expected, especially after low-energy trauma.

OBJECTIVE

Expected complications after conservative vs. operative treatment of various injury patterns of thoracic trauma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Evaluation of a selective literature search regarding possible complications after thoracic trauma and formulation of instructions for action as expert recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Both conservative and operative treatment of thoracic trauma have their specific complications, which have to be known to the treating physician. Lung contusions are often underestimated in the initial radiological diagnostics but often lead to relevant problems during the further course of treatment. After conservative treatment of rib fractures persistent pain, functional limitations or even relevant deformities due to secondary dislocation, can remain. There is a significant risk of overlooking or underestimating relevant injuries during the initial diagnostics which then leads to secondary complications. By far the most frequent risk of surgical treatment is an incorrect positioning of chest tubes. Overall, postoperative infections after chest trauma are relatively rare.

Clinical characteristics of patients with the hardware failure after surgical stabilization of rib fractures in Korea: a case series

Purpose

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is widely used in patients with flail chests, and several studies have reported the efficacy of SSRF even in multiple rib fractures. However, few reports have discussed the hardware failure (HF) of implanted plates. We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics of patients with HF after SSRF and further investigate the related factors.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent SSRF for multiple rib fractures at a level I trauma center in Korea between January 2014 and January 2021. We defined HF as the unintentional loosening of screws, dislocation, or breakage of the implanted plates. The baseline characteristics, surgical outcomes, and types of HF were assessed.

Results

During the study period, 728 patients underwent SSRF, of whom 80 (10.9%) were diagnosed with HF. The mean age of HF patients was 56.5±13.6 years, and 66 (82.5%) were men. There were 59 cases (73.8%) of screw loosening, 21 (26.3%) of plate breakage, 17 (21.3%) of screw migration, and seven (8.8%) of plate dislocation. Nine patients (11.3%) experienced wound infection, and 35 patients (43.8%) experienced chronic pain. A total of 21 patients (26.3%) underwent reoperation for plate removal. The patients in the reoperation group were significantly younger, had fewer fractures and plates, underwent costal fixation, and had a longer follow-up. There were no significant differences in subjective chest symptoms or lung capacity.

Conclusions

HF after SSRF occurred in 10.9% of the cases, and screw loosening was the most common. Further longitudinal studies are needed to identify risk factors for SSRF failure.

Hardware Infection From Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures Is Lower Than Previously Reported

Introduction Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is an emerging therapy for the treatment of patients with traumatic rib fractures. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SSRF, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the complications from SSRF, especially those related to hardware infection. Currently, literature quotes hardware infection rates as high as 4%. We hypothesize that the hardware infection rate is much lower than currently published. Methods This is an IRB-approved, four-year multicenter descriptive review of prospectively collected data from January 2016 to June 2022. All patients undergoing SSRF were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included those patients less that 18 years of age. Basic demographics were obtained: age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Abbreviate Injury Scale-chest (AIS-chest), flail chest (yes/no), delayed SSRF more than two weeks (yes/no), number of patients with a pre-SSRF chest tube, and number of ribs fixated. Primary outcome was hardware infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality rate and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Basic descriptive statistics were utilized for analysis. Results A total of 453 patients met criteria for inclusion in the study. Mean age was 63 ± 15.2 years and 71% were male. Mean ISS was 17.3 ± 8.5 with a mean AIS-chest of 3.2 ± 0.5. Flail chest (three consecutive ribs with two or more fractures on each rib) accounted for 32% of patients. Forty-two patients (9.3%) underwent delayed SSRF. The average number of ribs stabilized was 4.75 ± 0.71. When analyzing the primary outcome, only two patients (0.4%) developed a hardware infection requiring reoperation to remove the plates. Overall HLOS was 10.5 ± 6.8 days. Five patients suffered a mortality (1.1%), all five with ISS scores higher than 15 suggesting significant polytrauma. Conclusion This is the largest case series to date examining SSRF hardware infection. The incidence of SSRF hardware infection is very low (<0.5%), much less than quoted in current literature. Overall, SSRF is a safe procedure with low morbidity and mortality.

Biomechanical characteristics of rib fracture fixation systems

BACKGROUND

The primary aim of this study was to determine and compare the biomechanical properties of a fractured or intact rib after implant fixation on an embalmed thorax.

METHODS

Five systems were fixated on the bilateral fractured or intact (randomly allocated) 6th to 10th rib of five post-mortem embalmed human specimens. Each rib underwent a four-point bending test to determine the bending structural stiffness (Newton per m²), load to failure (Newton), failure mode, and the relative difference in bending structural stiffness and load to failure as compared to a non-fixated intact rib.

FINDINGS

As compared to a non-fixated intact rib, the relative difference in stiffness of a fixated intact rib ranged from -0.14 (standard deviation [SD], 0.10) to 0.53 (SD 0.35) and for a fixated fractured rib from -0.88 (SD 0.08) to 0.17 (SD 0.50). The most common failure mode was a new fracture at the most anterior drill hole for the plate and screw systems and a new fracture within the anterior portion of the implant for the clamping systems.

INTERPRETATION

The current fixation systems differ in their design, mode of action, and biomechanical properties. Differences in biomechanical properties such as stiffness and load to failure especially apply to fractured ribs. Insight in the differences between the systems might guide more specific implant selection and increase the surgeon's awareness for localizing hardware complaints or failure.

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.

Comparison of Infectious Complications after Surgical Fixation versus Epidural Analgesia for Acute Rib Fractures

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with decreased mortality and respiratory complications. Patients who are not offered SSRF are often treated with epidural analgesia (EA) to reduce pain and improve pulmonary mechanics. We sought to compare infectious complications in patients undergoing either SSRF or EA. We hypothesized that infectious complications are equivalent between the two treatment groups. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult trauma patients with acute rib fractures within the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2017 dataset and used International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes to identify patients who underwent SSRF or EA. We excluded patients who received both treatments in the same admission. Our primary outcome was the development of sepsis. Secondary outcomes were specific infections including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI). Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for age, injury severity score (ISS), chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), flail chest, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and comorbidities. Results: We identified 2,252 and 1,299 patients who underwent SSRF and EA, respectively. Patients with SSRF were younger with higher ISS and longer length of stay (LOS). There was no difference in mortality, however, SSRF had higher rate of sepsis (1.6% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.001), VAP (5.1% vs. 0.9%; p < 0.001), CAUTI (1.7% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.001), and CLABSI (0.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.05). On multiple regression, SSRF was associated with higher odds of sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-6.63), CAUTI (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.11-7.88), and VAP (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.73-6.06). Among those who developed sepsis, there was no significant difference in mortality or LOS between groups. Conclusions: Despite no difference in mortality, SSRF was associated with increased risk of septic complications in patients with rib fractures compared to epidural analgesia. Identifying, and addressing, risk factors of sepsis in this patient population is a critical performance improvement process to optimize outcomes without increased adverse events.

Three-Dimensional Printed Models for Preoperative Planning and Surgical Treatment of Chest Wall Disease: A Systematic Review

Introduction: In chest wall reconstruction, the main objectives are the restoration of the chest wall integrity, function, and aesthetic, which is often achieved with the placement of implants. We aimed to evaluate whether 3D printed models can be useful for preoperative planning and surgical treatment in chest wall reconstruction to improve the outcome of the surgery and to reduce the rate of complications. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of literature using PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar databases until 8 November 2021 with the following keywords: (“3D printing” or “rapid prototyping” or “three-dimensional printing” or “bioprinting”) and (“chest wall” or “rib” or “sternum” or “ribcage” or “pectus excavatum”). Results were then manually screened by two independent authors to select studies relevant to 3D printing application in chest wall reconstruction. The primary outcome was morphological correction, and secondary outcomes were changes in operating time and procedure-related complication rate. Results: Eight articles were included in our review. Four studies were related to pectus excavatum correction, two studies were related to rib fracture stabilization, and two studies were related to chest wall tumor resection and reconstruction. Seven studies reported 3D printing of a thorax model or template implants for preoperative planning and implant modeling, and one study reported 3D printing of a PEEK prosthesis for direct implantation. Four studies reported comparison with a conventionally treated control group, and three of them detected a shorter operative time in the 3D printing model-assisted group. Satisfactory morphological correction was reported in all studies, and six studies reported a good implant fitting with minimal need for intraoperative adjustments. There were no major intraoperative or postoperative complications in any of the studies. Conclusions: The use of 3D printing models in chest wall reconstruction seems to be helpful for the production of personalized implants, reducing intraoperative adjustments. Results of morphological correction and postoperative recovery after the 3D printing-assisted surgery were satisfactory in all studies with a low rate of complication. Our literature review suggests good results regarding prosthesis fitting, accuracy of surgical planning, and reduction in operative time in 3D printing-assisted procedures, although more evidence is needed to prove this observation.