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
Ochen, Y.; Peek, J.; Velde, D. van der; Beeres, F.J.P.; Heijl, M. van; Groenwold, R.H.H.; ... ; Heng, M.R. 2020
Importance No consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs... Show moreImportance No consensus has been reached to date regarding the optimal treatment for distal radius fractures. The international rate of operative treatment has been increasing, despite higher costs and limited functional outcome evidence to support this shift. Objectives To compare functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults. Data Sources The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases were searched from inception to June 15, 2019, for studies comparing operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures. Study Selection Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting on the following: acute distal radius fracture with operative treatment (internal or external fixation) vs nonoperative treatment (cast immobilization, splinting, or bracing); patients 18 years or older; and functional outcome. Studies in a language other than English or reporting treatment for refracture were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Effect estimates were pooled using random-effects models and presented as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed in September 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measures included medium-term functional outcome measured with the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) and the overall complication rate after operative and nonoperative treatment. Results A total of 23 unique studies were included, consisting of 8 RCTs and 15 observational studies, that described 2254 unique patients. Among the studies that presented sex data, 1769 patients were women [80.6%]. Overall weighted mean age was 67 [range, 22-90] years). The RCTs included 656 patients (29.1%); observational studies, 1598 patients (70.9%). The overall pooled effect estimates the showed a significant improvement in medium-term (<= 1 year) DASH score after operative treatment compared with nonoperative treatment (MD, -5.22 [95% CI, -8.87 to -1.57]; P = .005; I-2 = 84%). No difference in complication rate was observed (RR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]; P = .87; I-2 = 62%). A significant improvement in grip strength was noted after operative treatment, measured in kilograms (MD, 2.73 [95% CI, 0.15-5.32]; P = .04; I-2 = 79%) and as a percentage of the unaffected side (MD, 8.21 [95% CI, 2.26-14.15]; P = .007; I-2 = 76%). No improvement in medium-term DASH score was found in the subgroup of studies that only included patients 60 years or older (MD, -0.98 [95% CI, -3.52 to 1.57]; P = .45; I-2 = 34%]), compared with a larger improvement in medium-term DASH score after operative treatment in the other studies that included patients 18 years or older (MD, -7.50 [95% CI, -12.40 to -2.60]; P = .003; I-2 = 77%); the difference between these subgroups was statically significant (test for subgroup differences, P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance This meta-analysis suggests that operative treatment of distal radius fractures improves the medium-term DASH score and grip strength compared with nonoperative treatment in adults, with no difference in overall complication rate. The findings suggest that operative treatment might be more effective and have a greater effect on the health and well-being of younger, nonelderly patients.This meta-analysis compares functional, clinical, and radiologic outcomes after operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radial fractures in adults.Question What outcomes are associated with operative vs nonoperative treatment of distal radius fractures in adults? Findings This meta-analysis of 2254 unique participants in 23 unique studies showed that operative treatment of distal radius fractures improved the medium-term Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score and grip strength compared with nonoperative treatment in adults, with no difference in overall complication rate. Meaning These findings suggest that operative treatment might be preferred for distal radius fractures. 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
