Surgical management of rib fractures after blunt trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Multiple traumatic rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The last decade has seen a significant increase in rates of surgical fixation for both flail and non-flail rib fractures; the evidence for this has come from largely retrospective studies. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of this approach with that of non-operative management.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical stabilisation to non-operative management. Both flail and non-flail injuries were included.

RESULTS

Five RCTs reported the results of 286 patients. Only one study assessed non-flail fractures. The studies were heterogenic in nature and of mixed quality. Surgical stabilisation was associated with a reduction in pneumonia (RR 0.46, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.29 to 0.73, I²=42%, p=0.001). The duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference (MD) -6.3, 95% CI -12.16 to -0.43, I²=95%, p=0.05) and critical care length of stay was also shorter after surgery (mean difference -6.46 days, 95% CI 9.73 to -3.19, p<0.001); however, the overall length of stay in hospital was not (MD -7.18, 95% CI -15.63 to -1.28, I²=94%, p=0.1). No study demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.8, I²=0%, p=0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical stabilisation of rib fractures is associated with some improved clinical outcomes. Further large RCTs are still needed to confirm if there is also a survival benefit.

Outcomes after hip fractures sustained in hospital: A propensity-score matched cohort study

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare outcomes following hip fracture for patients who sustained their fracture whilst in hospital (inpatients) with those who sustained their fracture in the community (outpatients).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data on all hip fracture admissions aged 65 years or over between 1^st May 2007 and 31^st March 2018 was analysed from a prospectively collected hip fracture database. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, and discharge information were analysed. Outcome measures included mortality (inpatient, 30-day and one year), surgical site infection (SSI) rate and mean length of stay (LOS). Baseline characteristics were used to generate propensity-match scores for each patient, with inpatients matched to outpatients in a 1:1 ratio. Outcomes were compared after matching.

RESULTS

7,592 patients were included in the study. 338 were identified as having an inpatient hip fracture. There was a significantly greater level of comorbidity in the inpatient group at baseline. After propensity-score matching, there were 229 patients in the inpatient group and 222 in the outpatient group, with no significant difference in baseline co-morbidities. In this propensity score matched cohort, 30-day mortality was significantly higher in the inpatient group (16%) compared to the outpatient group (10%), P = 0.049. 1-year mortality was also significantly higher in the inpatient group (44%) compared to the outpatient group (34%), P = 0.03. There was no significant difference in inpatient mortality, mean LOS and SSI rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients who suffer a hip fracture whilst in hospital have significantly poorer outcomes than those who suffer a hip fracture whilst an outpatient, even after adjusting for co-morbidities. Dedicated guidelines are needed for this particularly vulnerable group.

Missed cervical spine injuries: a national survey of the practice of evaluation of the cervical spine in confused and comatose patients

AIM

Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All hospitals in England with an Emergency Department were asked about the protocols which they use for assessing the cervical spine. All 22 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 141 of 156 non-MTCs responded (response rate 91.5%).

RESULTS

Written guidelines were used in 138 hospitals (85%). CT scanning was the first-line investigation in 122 (75%). A normal CT scan was sufficient to clear the cervical spine in 73 (45%). However, 40 (25%) would continue precautions until the patient regained full consciousness. MRI was performed in all confused or comatose patients with a possible cervical spinal injury in 15 (9%). There were variations in the grade and speciality of the clinician who had responsibility for deciding when to discontinue precautions. A total of 31 (19%) reported at least one missed cervical spinal injury following discontinuation of spinal precautions within the last five years. Only 93 (57%) had a formal mechanism for reviewing missed injuries.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

There are significant variations in protocols and practices for the clearance of the cervical spine in multiply injured patients in acute hospitals in England. The establishment of trauma networks should be taken as an opportunity to further standardise trauma care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:825-8.