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
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
BACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury... Show moreBACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of >= 3 in >= 2 body regions (2AIS >= 3) combined with the presence of >= 1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODSThe evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS >= 3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of >= 16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS >= 3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of >= 16. RESULTSThe DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of >= 16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS >= 3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS >= 3 and ISS >= 16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSIONThis study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS >= 16 and 2AIS >= 3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate. Show less
