Prospective single-center paradigm shift of surgical stabilization of rib fractures with decreased length of stay and operative time with an intrathoracic approach

Effects of post rib plating tube thoracostomy output on the need for thoracic re-intervention: Does the volume matter?

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has been demonstrated to improve early clinical outcomes. Tube thoracostomy (TT) is commonly performed with SSRF, however there is a paucity of data regarding when removal of TT following SSRF should occur. This study aimed to compare patients undergoing thoracic reinterventions (reintubation, reinsertion of TT/pigtail, or video-assisted thoracic surgery) to those not following SSRF+TT, hypothesizing increased TT output prior to removal would be associated with thoracic reintervention.

METHODS

We performed a single center retrospective (2018-2023) analysis of blunt trauma patients ≥ 18 years-old undergoing SSRF+TT. The primary outcome was thoracic reinterventions. Patients undergoing thoracic reintervention ((+)thoracic reinterventions) after TT removal were compared to those who did not ((-)thoracic reintervention). Secondary outcomes included TT duration and outputs prior to removal.

RESULTS

From 133 blunt trauma patients undergoing SSRF+TT, 23 (17.3 %) required thoracic reinterventions. Both groups were of comparable age. The (+)thoracic reintervention group had an increased injury severity score (median: 29 vs. 17, p = 0.035) and TT duration (median: 4 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001) following SSRF. However, there were no differences in median TT outputs between both cohorts post-SSRF day 1 (165 mL vs. 160 mL, p = 0.88) as well as within 24 h (60 mL vs. 70 mL, p = 0.93) prior to TT removal.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated over 17 % of SSRF+TT patients required a thoracic reintervention. There was no association between thoracic reintervention and the TT output prior to removal. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings, which suggest no absolute threshold for TT output should be utilized regarding when to pull TT following SSRF.

An early analysis of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) plates for the surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is a viable treatment option for rib fracture patients. Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) plates have become available for SSRF. The objective of this pilot study was to examine the use of PEEK plates for SSRF.

METHODS

A prospective, observational, multi-center study of patients undergoing SSRF with PEEK plates from 4/23 through 2/24. Standard indications for SSRF were followed and the decision to use PEEK plates was left to the discretion of the treating surgeon. Basic demographics were obtained. Outcomes included the number of rib fractures stabilized with PEEK plates, complications related to SSRF, and 6-month follow-up with chest computed tomography (CT) to assess healing of PEEK repaired fracture sites, identified as complete or incomplete union. Patients also answered a five-question quality-of-life survey regarding mobility, self-care, usual activities, chest pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Answers were scaled 1 to 5 (1=worse condition possible; 5=best possible condition). Patients rated their health on a scale of 0 to 100 (100=closet to their health preinjury). All data was reported as descriptive.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included. Average age was 57(±16) years; 82.6 % were male. Median ISS was 18 (IQR 14,29) and median chest-AIS was 4 (IQR 3,4). 219 rib fractures were stabilized with PEEK plates. Sixteen (34.8 %) had a combination (PEEK + titanium) procedure. Three patients had a complication: one required a second surgery for additional SSRF, and two patients were readmitted. Twenty-seven patients were surveyed at 6 months, and 19 agreed to CT scan. Eighty PEEK repaired rib fractures were assessed for healing. 80 % of fractures had complete union and no hardware failure. Quality-of-life survey averaged >4.5/category and mean overall health was 89.

CONCLUSION

PEEK plates for SSRF are safe and effective, allowing for adequate rib fracture healing and are associated with positive patient reported outcomes.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF): the WSES and CWIS position paper

BACKGROUND

Rib fractures are one of the most common traumatic injuries and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite growing evidence, technological advances and increasing acceptance, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains not uniformly considered in trauma centers. Indications, contraindications, appropriate timing, surgical approaches and utilized implants are part of an ongoing debate. The present position paper, which is endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), and supported by the Chest Wall Injury Society, aims to provide a review of the literature investigating the use of SSRF in rib fracture management to develop graded position statements, providing an updated guide and reference for SSRF.

METHODS

This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on the position statements.

RESULTS

A total of 287 studies (systematic reviews, randomized clinical trial, prospective and retrospective comparative studies, case series, original articles) have been selected from an initial pool of 9928 studies. Thirty-nine graded position statements were put forward to address eight crucial aspects of SSRF: surgical indications, contraindications, optimal timing of surgery, preoperative imaging evaluation, rib fracture sites for surgical fixation, management of concurrent thoracic injuries, surgical approach, stabilization methods and material selection.

CONCLUSION

This consensus document addresses the key focus questions on surgical treatment of rib fractures. The expert recommendations clarify current evidences on SSRF indications, timing, operative planning, approaches and techniques, with the aim to guide clinicians in optimizing the management of rib fractures, to improve patient outcomes and direct future research.

Intrathoracic plates versus extrathoracic plates: a comparison of postoperative pain in surgical stabilization of rib fracture technique

Background

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has been shown to improve outcomes, yet there is an absence of studies comparing SSRF techniques. An intrathoracic system that minimizes incision length has recently been developed and adopted by multiple institutions. We hypothesized that SSRF with an intrathoracic system plus intercostal nerve cryoneurolysis (IC) leads to improved pain control compared with an extrathoracic system plus IC.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective chart review was performed comparing intrathoracic SSRF versus extrathoracic SSRF, and included patients undergoing SSRF from 2015 to 2021 at a level 1 trauma center. Patients who did not undergo intercostal nerve cryoablation were excluded. The primary outcome was opioid consumption based on morphine milligram equivalent (MME) consumption. We collected Rib score, Blunt Pulmonary Contusion 18 Score, number of rib fractures, number of ribs plated, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) to compare baseline characteristics of each group.

Results

A total of 112 patients were evaluated for study inclusion. Thirty-one patients were excluded due to missing outcomes data and/or lack of cryoablation. There was no difference in ISS or Rib Score between the intrathoracic (n=33) and extrathoracic (n=48) groups. At 7-day follow-up, the median MME requirement was significantly lower in the intrathoracic group (21.25) versus the extrathoracic group (46.20) (p=0.02).

Conclusion

Intrathoracic SSRF was associated with a lower postoperative MME consumption compared with extrathoracic SSRF. These data support the use of intrathoracic SSRF to improve pain control compared to extrathoracic SSRF.

Level of evidence

III.