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
PurposeThe present study aims to assess whether CT-derived muscle mass, muscle density, and visceral fat mass are associated with in-hospital complications and clinical outcome in level-1 trauma... Show morePurposeThe present study aims to assess whether CT-derived muscle mass, muscle density, and visceral fat mass are associated with in-hospital complications and clinical outcome in level-1 trauma patients.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients admitted to the University Medical Center Utrecht following a trauma between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Trauma patients aged 16 years or older without severe neurological injuries, who underwent a CT that included the abdomen within 7 days of admission, were included. An artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm was used to retrieve muscle areas to calculate the psoas muscle index and to retrieve psoas muscle radiation attenuation and visceral fat (VF) area from axial CT images. Multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to assess associations between body composition parameters and outcomes.ResultsA total of 404 patients were included for analysis. The median age was 49 years (interquartile range [IQR] 30-64), and 66.6% were male. Severe comorbidities (ASA 3-4) were seen in 10.9%, and the median ISS was 9 (IQR 5-14). Psoas muscle index was not independently associated with complications, but it was associated with ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.95), and an unfavorable Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at discharge (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.85). Psoas muscle radiation attenuation was independently associated with the development of any complication (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42-0.85), pneumonia (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.96), and delirium (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.87). VF was associated with developing a delirium (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.12-3.41).ConclusionIn level-1 trauma patients without severe neurological injuries, automatically derived body composition parameters are able to independently predict an increased risk of specific complications and other poor 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
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
