BACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to ... Show moreBACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to (respiratory) complications and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to assess whether adding chest wall stability by performing clavicle fixation improves clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent clavicle and rib fractures.METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients admitted between January 2018 and March 2021 with concurrent ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up.RESULTS: In total, 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was observed between clavicle plate fixation and HLOS (mean difference, 2.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to 6.8; p = 0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which 5 underwent secondary clavicle fixation.CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that, in patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle reduces HLOS, pain, or ( pulmonary) complications, nor that it improves quality of life. (Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III. Show less
Hoepelman, R.J.; Minervini, F.; Beeres, F.J.P.; Wageningen, B. van; IJpma, F.F.; Veelen, N.M. van; ... ; NEXT study grp 2023
IntroductionMost studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes... Show moreIntroductionMost studies about rib fractures focus on mortality and morbidity. Literature is scarce on long term and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Therefore, we report QoL and long-term outcomes after rib fixation in flail chest patients. MethodsA prospective cohort study of clinical flail chest patients admitted to six level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands and Switzerland between January 2018 and March 2021. Outcomes included in-hospital outcomes and long-term outcomes, such as QoL measurements 12 months after hospitalization using the EuroQoL five dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire. ResultsSixty-one operatively treated flail chest patients were included. Median hospital length of stay was 15 days and intensive care length of stay was 8 days. Sixteen (26%) patients developed pneumonia and two (3%) died. One year after hospitalization the mean EQ5D score was 0.78. Complication rates were low and included hemothorax (6%) pleural effusion (5%) and two revisions of the implant (3%). Implant related irritation was commonly reported by patients (n = 15, 25%). ConclusionsRib fixation for flail chest injuries can be considered a safe procedure and with low mortality rates. Future studies should focus on quality of life rather than solely short-term outcomes. Show less
Background: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is... Show moreBackground: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. Results: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. Conclusions: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. Show less
Background Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is... Show moreBackground Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. Results In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. Conclusions We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. Show less
PURPOSE The aim of this systematic review was to assess the necessity of routine chest radiographs after chest tube removal in ventilated and nonventilated trauma patients. METHODS A systematic... Show morePURPOSE The aim of this systematic review was to assess the necessity of routine chest radiographs after chest tube removal in ventilated and nonventilated trauma patients. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria. Primary outcome measures were abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph (e.g., recurrence of a pneumothorax, hemothorax, pleural effusion) and reintervention after chest tube removal. Secondary outcome measures were emergence of new clinical symptoms or vital signs after chest tube removal. RESULTS Fourteen studies were included, consisting of seven studies on nonventilated patients and seven studies on combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients, all together containing 1,855 patients. Nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 10% (range across studies, 0-38%) of all chest tubes and 24% (range, 0-78%) of those underwent reintervention. In the studies that reported on clinical symptoms after chest tube removal, all patients who underwent reintervention also had symptoms of recurrent pathology. Combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 20% (range, 6-49%) of all chest tubes and 45% (range, 8-63%) of those underwent reintervention. CONCLUSION In nonventilated patients, one in ten developed recurrent pathology after chest tube removal and almost a quarter of them underwent reintervention. In two studies that reported on clinical symptoms, all reinterventions were performed in patients with symptoms of recurrent pathology. In these two studies, omission of routine postremoval chest radiograph seemed safe. However, current literature remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on this matter, and future studies are needed. Show less
