The practice of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) for severe chest wall injury has exponentially increased over the last decade due to improved outcomes as compared to nonoperative management. However, regarding in-hospital outcomes, the ideal time from injury to SSRF remains a matter of debate. This review aims to evaluate and summarize currently available literature related to timing of SSRF. Nine studies on the effect of time to SSRF were identified. All were retrospective comparative studies with no detailed information on why patients underwent early or later SSRF. Patients underwent SSRF most often for a flail chest or ≥3 displaced rib fractures. Early SSRF (≤48-72 hours after admission) was associated with shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (HLOS and ICU-LOS, respectively), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), and lower rates of pneumonia, and tracheostomy as well as lower hospitalization costs. No difference between early or late SSRF was demonstrated for mortality rate. As compared to nonoperative management, late SSRF (>3 days after admission), was associated with similar or worse in-hospital outcomes. The optimal time to perform SSRF in patients with severe chest wall injury is early (≤48-72 hours after admission) and associated with improved in-hospital outcomes as compared to either late salvage or nonoperative management. These data must however be cautiously interpreted due the retrospective nature of the studies and potential selection and attrition bias. Future research should focus on both factors and pathways that allow patients to undergo early SSRF.

/pdf/what-is-the-optimal-timing-to-perform-surgical-stabilization-gpqmcgfrog.pdf

What is the optimal timing to perform surgical stabilization of rib fractures

BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess the prevalence of chest wall injuries due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) and to compare in-hospital outcomes in patients with versus without chest wall injuries. METHODS A retrospective cohort study of all intensive care unit (ICU)-admitted patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation for OHCA between January 1, 2007, and December 2019 was performed. The primary outcome was the occurrence of chest wall injuries, as diagnosed on chest computed tomography. Chest wall injury characteristics such as rib fracture location, type, and dislocation were collected. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital outcomes and subgroup analysis of patients with good neurological recovery to identify those who could possibly benefit from the surgical stabilization of rib fractures. RESULTS Three hundred forty-four patients were included, of which 291 (85%) sustained chest wall injury. Patients with chest wall injury had a median of 8 fractured ribs (P25-P75, 4-10 ribs), which were most often undisplaced (on chest computed tomography) (n = 1,574 [72.1%]), simple (n = 1,948 [89.2%]), and anterior (n = 1,785 [77.6%]) rib fractures of ribs 2 to 7. Eight patients (2.3%) had a flail segment, and 136 patients (39.5%) had an anterior flail segment. Patients with chest wall injury had fewer ventilator-free days (0 days [P25-P75, 0-16 days] vs. 13 days [P25-P75, 2-22 days]; p = 0.006) and a higher mortality rate (n = 102 [54.0%] vs. n = 8 [22.2%]; p < 0.001) than those without chest wall injury. For the subgroup of patients with good neurological recovery, the presence of six or more rib fractures or a single displaced rib fracture was associated with longer hospital and ICU length of stay, respectively. CONCLUSION Cardiopulmonary resuscitation-related chest wall injuries in survivors of OHCA and especially rib fractures are common. Patients with chest wall injury had fewer ventilator-free days and a higher mortality rate. Patients with good neurological recovery might represent a subgroup of patients who could benefit from surgical stabilization of rib fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, level IV; Epidemiological, Level IV.

Chest wall injuries due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation and the effect on in-hospital outcomes in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Literature on outcomes after SSRF, stratified for rib fracture pattern is scarce in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI; Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 12). We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with improved outcomes as compared to nonoperative management without hampering neurological recovery in these patients.A post hoc subgroup analysis of the multicenter, retrospective CWIS-TBI study was performed in patients with TBI and stratified by having sustained a non-flail fracture pattern or flail chest between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days and secondary outcomes were in-hospital outcomes. In multivariable analysis, outcomes were assessed, stratified for rib fracture pattern.In total, 449 patients were analyzed. In patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, 25 of 228 (11.0%) underwent SSRF and in patients with a flail chest, 86 of 221 (38.9%). In multivariable analysis, ventilator-free days were similar in both treatment groups. For patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, the odds of pneumonia were significantly lower after SSRF (odds ratio 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.77; p = 0.013). In patients with a flail chest, the ICU LOS was significantly shorter in the SSRF group (beta, - 2.96 days; 95% CI - 5.70 to - 0.23; p = 0.034).In patients with TBI and a non-flail fracture pattern, SSRF was associated with a reduced pneumonia risk. In patients with TBI and a flail chest, a shorter ICU LOS was observed in the SSRF group. In both groups, SSRF was safe and did not hamper neurological recovery. 

/pdf/surgical-stabilization-versus-nonoperative-treatment-for-18l7h53x.pdf

Surgical stabilization versus nonoperative treatment for flail and non-flail rib fracture patterns in patients with traumatic brain injury

Rib fracture is the most common injury in chest trauma. Most of patients with rib fractures were treated conservatively, but up to 50% of patients, especially those with combined injury such as flail chest, presented chronic pain or chest wall deformities, and more than 30% had long-term disabilities, unable to retain a full-time job. In the past two decades, surgery for rib fractures has achieving good outcomes. However, in clinic, there are still some problems including inconsistency in surgical indications and quality control in medical services. Before the year of 2018, there were 3 guidelines on the management of regional traumatic rib fractures were published at home and abroad, focusing on the guidance of the overall treatment decisions and plans; another clinical guideline about the surgical treatment of rib fractures lacks recent related progress in surgical treatment of rib fractures. The Chinese Society of Traumatology, Chinese Medical Association, and the Chinese College of Trauma Surgeons, Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized experts from cardiothoracic surgery, trauma surgery, acute care surgery, orthopedics and other disciplines to participate together, following the principle of evidence-based medicine and in line with the scientific nature and practicality, formulated the Chinese consensus for surgical treatment of traumatic rib fractures (STTRF 2021). This expert consensus put forward some clear, applicable, and graded recommendations from seven aspects: preoperative imaging evaluation, surgical indications, timing of surgery, surgical methods, rib fracture sites for surgical fixation, internal fixation method and material selection, treatment of combined injuries in rib fractures, in order to provide guidance and reference for surgical treatment of traumatic rib fractures.

The Chinese consensus for surgical treatment of traumatic rib fractures 2021 (C-STTRF 2021).

Background : Publications investigating the efficacy of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have increased exponentially. However, there is currently no standardized reporting structure for these studies, rendering both comparisons and extrapolation problematic. Methods : A subject matter expert group was formed by the Chest Wall Injury Society. This group conducted a review of the SSRF investigational literature and identified variable reporting within several general categories of relevant parameters. A compliment of guidelines was then generated. Results : The reporting guidelines consist of 26 recommendations in the categories of: (1) study type, (2) patient and injury characteristics, (3) patient treatments, (4) outcomes, and (5) statistical considerations. Conclusion : Our review identified inconsistencies in reporting within the investigational SSRF literature. In response to these inconsistencies, we propose a set of recommendations to standardize reporting of original investigations into the efficacy of SSRF.

The Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Reporting Studies of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures

Background Outcomes after surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have not been studied in patients with multiple rib fractures and traumatic brain injury (TBI). We hypothesized that SSRF, as compared with nonoperative management, is associated with favorable outcomes in patients with TBI. Methods A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed in patients with rib fractures and TBI between January 2012 and July 2019. Patients who underwent SSRF were compared to those managed nonoperatively. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay, tracheostomy, occurrence of complications, neurologic outcome, and mortality. Patients were further stratified into moderate (GCS score, 9-12) and severe (GCS score, ≤8) TBI. Results The study cohort consisted of 456 patients of which 111 (24.3%) underwent SSRF. The SSRF was performed at a median of 3 days, and SSRF-related complication rate was 3.6%. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in mechanical ventilation-free days between the SSRF and nonoperative groups. The odds of developing pneumonia (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.38-0.98; p = 0.043) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.91; p = 0.032) were significantly lower in the SSRF group. Patients with moderate TBI had similar outcome in both groups. In patients with severe TBI, the odds of 30-day mortality was significantly lower after SSRF (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.88; p = 0.034). Conclusion In patients with multiple rib fractures and TBI, the mechanical ventilation-free days did not differ between the two treatment groups. In addition, SSRF was associated with a significantly lower risk of pneumonia and 30-day mortality. In patients with moderate TBI, outcome was similar. In patients with severe TBI a lower 30-day mortality was observed. There was a low SSRF-related complication risk. These data suggest a potential role for SSRF in select patients with TBI. Level of evidence Therapeutic, level IV.

Outcome after surgical stabilization of rib fractures versus nonoperative treatment in patients with multiple rib fractures and moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (CWIS-TBI).

Eva Corina Caragounis

Papers

Outcome after surgical stabilization of rib fractures versus nonoperative treatment in patients with multiple rib fractures and moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (CWIS-TBI).