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
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
Purpose Rib fractures following thoracic trauma are frequently encountered injuries and associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to provide current data on... Show morePurpose Rib fractures following thoracic trauma are frequently encountered injuries and associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to provide current data on the epidemiology, in-hospital outcomes and 30-day mortality of rib fractures, and to evaluate these results for different subgroups. Methods A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed with the use of the Dutch Trauma Registry which covers 99% of the acutely admitted Dutch trauma population. All patients aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital between January 2015 and December 2017 with one or more rib fractures were included. Incidence rates were calculated using demographic data from the Dutch Population Register. Subgroup analyses were performed for flail chest, polytrauma, primary thoracic trauma, and elderly patients. Results A total of 14,850 patients were admitted between 2015 and 2017 with one or more rib fractures, which was 6.0% of all trauma patients. Of these, 573 (3.9%) patients had a flail chest, 4438 (29.9%) were polytrauma patients, 9273 (63.4%) were patients with primary thoracic trauma, and 6663 (44.9%) were elderly patients. The incidence rate of patients with rib fractures for the entire cohort was 29 per 100.000 person-years. The overall 30-day mortality was 6.9% (n = 1208) with higher rates observed in flail chest (11.9%), polytrauma (14.8%), and elderly patients (11.7%). The median hospital length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 3-11) and 37.3% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Conclusions Rib fractures are a relevant and frequently occurring problem among the trauma population. Subgroup analyses showed that there is a substantial heterogeneity among patients with rib fractures with considerable differences regarding the epidemiology, in-hospital outcomes, and 30-day mortality. Show less
Purpose Rib fixation for flail chest has been shown to improve in-hospital outcome, but little is known about treatment for multiple rib fractures and long-term outcome is scarce. The aim of this... Show morePurpose Rib fixation for flail chest has been shown to improve in-hospital outcome, but little is known about treatment for multiple rib fractures and long-term outcome is scarce. The aim of this study was to describe the safety, long-term quality of life, and implant-related irritation after rib fixation for flail chest and multiple rib fractures. Methods All adult patients with blunt thoracic trauma who underwent rib fixation for flail chest or multiple rib fractures between January 2010 and December 2016 in our level 1 trauma facility were retrospectively included. In-hospital characteristics and implant removal were obtained via medical records and long-term quality of life was assessed over the telephone. Results Of the 864 patients admitted with >= 3 rib fractures, 166 (19%) underwent rib fixation; 66 flail chest patients and 99 multiple rib fracture patients with an ISS of 24 (IQR 18-34) and 21 (IQR 16-29), respectively. Overall, the most common complication was pneumonia (n = 58, 35%). Six (9%) patients with a flail chest and three (3%) with multiple rib fractures died, only one because of injuries related to the thorax. On average at 3.9 years, follow-up was obtained from 103 patients (62%); 40 with flail chest and 63 with multiple rib fractures reported an EQ-5D index of 0.85 (IQR 0.62-1) and 0.79 (0.62-0.91), respectively. Forty-eight (48%) patients had implant-related irritation and nine (9%) had implant removal. Conclusions We show that rib fixation is a safe procedure and that patients reported a relative good quality of life. Patients should be counseled that after rib fixation approximately half of the patients will experience implant-related irritation and about one in ten patients requires implant material removal. Show less
Purpose The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to present current evidence on rib fixation and to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and... Show morePurpose The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to present current evidence on rib fixation and to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched on June 16th 2017 for both RCTs and observational studies comparing rib fixation versus nonoperative treatment. The MINORS criteria were used to assess study quality. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was mortality. Secondary outcome measures were hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), pneumonia, and tracheostomy. Results Thirty-three studies were included resulting in 5874 patients with flail chest or multiple rib fractures: 1255 received rib fixation and 4619 nonoperative treatment. Rib fixation for flail chest reduced mortality compared to nonoperative treatment with a risk ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.27, 0.61, p < 0.001, I-2 = 0%). Furthermore, rib fixation resulted in a shorter ILOS, DMV, lower pneumonia rate, and need for tracheostomy. Results from recent studies showed lower mortality and shorter DMV after rib fixation, but there were no significant differences for the other outcome measures. There was insufficient data to perform meta-analyses on rib fixation for multiple rib fractures. Pooled results from RCTs and observational studies were similar for all outcome measures, although results from RCTs showed a larger treatment effect for HLOS, ILOS, and DMV compared to observational studies. Conclusions Rib fixation for flail chest improves short-term outcome, although the indication and patient subgroup who would benefit most remain unclear. There is insufficient data regarding treatment for multiple rib fractures. Observational studies show similar results compared with RCTs. Show less
Introduction A trend has evolved towards rib fixation for flail chest although evidence is limited. Little is known about rib fixation for multiple rib fractures without flail chest. The aim of... Show moreIntroduction A trend has evolved towards rib fixation for flail chest although evidence is limited. Little is known about rib fixation for multiple rib fractures without flail chest. The aim of this study is to compare rib fixation with nonoperative treatment for both patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures.Methods and analysis In this study protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study, all patients with three or morerib fractures admitted to one of the five participating centres will be included. In two centres, rib fixation is performed and in three centres nonoperative treatment is the standard-of-care for flail chest or multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome measures are intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. Propensity score matching will be used to control for potential confounding of the relation between treatment modality and length of stay. All analyses will be performed separately for patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures without flail chest.Ethics and dissemination The regional Medical Research Ethics Committee UMC Utrecht approved a waiver of consent (reference number WAG/mb/17/024787 and METC protocol number 17-544/C). Patients will be fully informed of the purpose and procedures of the study, and signed informed consent will be obtained in agreement with the General Data Protection Regulation. Study results will be submitted for peer review publication.Trial registration number NTR6833 Show less
Background Over the years, a trend has evolved towards operative treatment of flail chest although evidence is limited. Furthermore, little is known about operative treatment for patients with... Show moreBackground Over the years, a trend has evolved towards operative treatment of flail chest although evidence is limited. Furthermore, little is known about operative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures without a flail chest. The aim of this study was to compare rib fixation based on a clinical treatment algorithm with nonoperative treatment for both patients with a flail chest or multiple rib fractures. Methods All patients with >= 3 rib fractures admitted to one of the two contributing hospitals between January 2014 and January 2017 were retrospectively included in this multicenter cohort study. One hospital treated all patients nonoperatively and the other hospital treated patients with rib fixation according to a clinical treatment algorithm. Primary outcome measures were intensive care length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. To control for potential confounding, propensity score matching was applied. Results A total of 332 patients were treated according to protocol and available for analysis. The mean age was 56 (SD 17) years old and 257 (77%) patients were male. The overall mean Injury Severity Score was 23 (SD 11) and the average number of rib fractures was 8 (SD 4). There were 92 patients with a flail chest, 37 (40%) had rib fixation and 55 (60%) had non-operative treatment. There were 240 patients with multiple rib fractures, 28 (12%) had rib fixation and 212 (88%) had non-operative treatment. For both patient groups, after propensity score matching, rib fixation was not associated with intensive care unit length of stay (for flail chest patients) nor with hospital length of stay (for multiple rib fracture patients), nor with the secondary outcome measures. Conclusion No advantage could be demonstrated for operative fixation of rib fractures. Future studies are needed before rib fixation is embedded or abandoned in clinical practice. Show less
