Surgical treatment ofpatients with severe non-flail chest rib fractures

Comparative study of wound outcomes and surgical strategies: Internal fixation versus external stabilization in rib fracture patients with traumatic chest wounds

The clinical management of traumatic chest incisions accompanied by rib fractures presents the formidable challenge. The study was carried out to compare the outcomes of auscultatory triangle internal fixation (ATIF) and external fixation (EF) in such injuries. From June 2019 to June 2022, 105 patients with multiple rib fractures participated in the cohort study in which they were divided into two groups: 53 patients underwent ATIF and 52 patients underwent EF. The incidence of surgical site infection, wound healing time, incidence of wound dehiscence, number of dressing changes, pain as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS), duration of hospitalization, period of return to work, pulmonary complications and functionality of the upper limbs as assessed by the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire were among the parameters evaluated. In comparison with EF, ATIF demonstrated the decreased incidence of wound dehiscence (1.9% vs. 9.6%) (p < 0.05), surgical site infection (3.8 vs. 11.5) and wound healing time (12.3 ± 2.1 vs. 18.5 ± 3.7 days) (p < 0.05). Furthermore, during their ATIF treatment, patients required fewer changes of dressing (3.5 ± 0.8 vs. 5.7 ± 1.2) and demonstrated enhanced pain management, reduced hospital stays and expedited return to work (p < 0.05). ATIF group demonstrated enhancements in both upper limb functionality and post-operative pulmonary function (p < 0.05). The utilization of ATIF as opposed to EF for the treatment of traumatic chest wounds accompanied by rib fractures yields superior outcomes in terms of wound healing, infection reduction and restoration of pulmonary and upper limb functionality.

Surgical stabilization of multiple rib fractures in an Asian population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

There is no consensus on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization in multiple rib fractures in Asia, especially among patients with a non-flail rib fracture pattern. We aim to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) in an Asian population with multiple non-flail rib fractures.

Methods

The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in this systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify studies conducted in Asia that included patients with multiple non-flail rib fractures in at least one of their treatment groups. The intervention of interest was SSRF, and the comparator was a nonoperative treatment. The duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) was the primary outcome. Posttreatment pain score, pneumonia, atelectasis, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), hospital length of stay (HLOS), need for tracheostomy, respiratory function, functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and mortality were identified as the secondary outcomes. A random effects model (REM) was used to pool data for outcomes reported in two or more studies.

Results

A total of 12 studies (n=2,440 patients) were included. There was a significantly shorter DMV {mean difference (MD): -5.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.64 to -0.81], P=0.02}, lower 4-week post-treatment pain score [standard mean difference (SMD): -2.24 (95% CI: -3.18 to -1.31), P<0.00001], lower risk for pneumonia [risk ratio (RR): 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95), P=0.04], lower risk for atelectasis [RR: 0.44, (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.65), P<0.0001], shorter ICU LOS [MD: -4.00 (95% CI: -6.33 to -1.66), P=0.0008], and shorter HLOS [MD: -6.54 (95% CI: -9.28 to -3.79), P<0.00001] in favor of SSRF. Effect estimates for the need for tracheostomy [RR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.42 to 1.08), P=0.10] and mortality [RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.37 to 2.41), P=0.90] were nonsignificant.

Conclusions

In the Asian population with mainly non-flail rib fracture patterns, SSRF was associated with shorter DMV, ICU LOS, and HLOS as well as lower risks for atelectasis and pneumonia, and pain scores after 4 weeks. The risk of mortality was comparable between treatment groups.

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.

Does surgical fixation improve pain and quality of life in patients with non-flail rib fractures? A best evidence topic review

A best evidence topic in thoracic surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘does surgical stabilization of rib fractures improve pain and quality of life in patients with non-flail rib fractures?’. Altogether >300 papers were found using the reported search, of which 6 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers were tabulated. Whilst several non-randomized cohort studies demonstrate superior pain and quality of life outcomes with surgical fixation as compared to conservative management, this is not replicated by the findings of a recent randomized trial which found worse pain, but early return to work in those treated with surgical stabilization of rib fractures. Given this, clinicians will need to carefully consider the indications for treating painful non-flail rib fractures as surgical fixation represents a reasonable treatment option in only appropriately selected candidates.

Surgical Rib Fixation of Multiple Rib Fractures and Flail Chest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple rib fractures and flail chest are common in trauma patients and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. While rib fractures have historically been treated conservatively, there is increasing interest in the benefits of surgical fixation. However, strong evidence that supports surgical rib fixation and identifies the most appropriate patients for its application is currently sparse.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines was performed to identify all peer-reviewed papers that examined surgical compared to conservative management of rib fractures. We undertook a subgroup analysis to determine the specific effects of rib fracture type, age, the timing of fixation and study design on outcomes. The primary outcomes were the length of hospital and ICU stay, and secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation time, rates of pneumonia, and mortality.

RESULTS

Our search identified 45 papers in the systematic review, and 40 were included in the meta-analysis. There was a statistical benefit of surgical fixation compared to conservative management of rib fractures for length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation, mortality, pneumonia, and tracheostomy. The subgroup analysis identified surgical fixation was most favorable for patients with flail chest and those who underwent surgical fixation within 72 h. Patients over 60 y had a statistical benefit of conservative management on length of hospital stay and mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical fixation of flail and multiple rib fractures is associated with a reduction in morbidity and mortality outcomes compared to conservative management. However, careful selection of patients is required for the appropriate application of surgical rib fixation.

The Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Reporting Studies of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures

BACKGROUND

Publications investigating the efficacy of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have increased exponentially. However, there is currently no standardized reporting structure for these studies, rendering both comparisons and extrapolation problematic.

METHODS

A subject matter expert group was formed by the Chest Wall Injury Society. This group conducted a review of the SSRF investigational literature and identified variable reporting within several general categories of relevant parameters. A compliment of guidelines was then generated.

RESULTS

The reporting guidelines consist of 26 recommendations in the categories of: (1) study type, (2) patient and injury characteristics, (3) patient treatments, (4) outcomes, and (5) statistical considerations.

CONCLUSION

Our review identified inconsistencies in reporting within the investigational SSRF literature. In response to these inconsistencies, we propose a set of recommendations to standardize reporting of original investigations into the efficacy of SSRF.

Analysis of the therapeutic effect and prognosis in 86 cases of rib fractures and atelectasis

Background

The aim of the present study was to explore the therapeutic effect and prognosis in patients with rib fractures and atelectasis after thoracic trauma in order to provide a basis for clinical decision-making in primary hospitals.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 86 patients admitted to our hospital between January 2016 and May 2020 with rib fractures and atelectasis after thoracic trauma. On the basis of the chest computed tomography scans taken at the time of discharge, the patients were divided into two groups: the reexpansion group and the non-reexpansion group. The two groups were compared with respect to the changes observed in the patients’ levels of blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) and pulmonary function, the presence of secondary pulmonary or thoracic infection, the time of chest tube drainage, the length of hospitalization, the cost of hospitalization, and the patients’ level of satisfaction with their quality of life 3 months after discharge.

Results

In the reexpansion group, there were significant differences in the levels of SpO2 and pulmonary function measured before and after pulmonary reexpansion (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-reexpansion group, the patients in the reexpansion group had a lower incidence of secondary pulmonary and thoracic infection and a higher level of satisfaction with their quality of life after discharge; these differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was no statistical significance between the two groups with respect to the time of chest tube drainage or the length of hospitalization (P > 0.05). However, the cost of hospitalization was significantly higher in the reexpansion group than in the non-reexpansion group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The patients in the pulmonary reexpansion group had a lower incidence of complications and a better prognosis than the patients in the non-reexpansion group.

Clinical efficacy of surgical versus conservative treatment for multiple rib fractures: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There are still controversies between surgical treatment and conservative treatment for multiple rib fractures (MRFs). No consensus has been reached concerning the indications and timing of surgery. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to determine the optimal treatment for MRFs.

METHODS

Six databases (PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Cnki, Wanfang Database) were retrieved for all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2020. MRFs were treated either with operative reduction and internal fixation or conservative treatment. The pertinent data were retrieved. The quality of RCTs was evaluated by the modified Jadad rating scale and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 538 MRFs patients (260 were treated surgically vs. 278 conservatively) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment resulted in shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -8.48; 95% CI -11.34 to -5.63; P < 0.001), length of ICU stay (WMD -5.72; 95% CI -7.31 to -4.13; P < 0.001) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -4.93; 95% CI -8.79 to -1.07; P = 0.01), with a lower risk of complications including pneumonia (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53; P < 0.001) and chest wall deformity (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.14; P < 0.001). The sensitivity analysis carried out by excluding one study with significant heterogeneity showed that the rate of tracheostomy was lower in the surgical group than in the conservative group (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.71; P = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with MRFs, surgical treatment resulted in faster recovery, a lower risk of complications and better prognosis than conservative treatment.