Dataset Information

Surgical versus conservative therapy for multiple rib fractures: a retrospective analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background:In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effects of multiple rib fracture treatments using a rib plate fixator. Methods:From June 2014 to December 2016, 110 cases of patients with multiple rib fractures were collected for our study from the 105th Hospital of PLA; 59 patients were treated by surgery, and 51 patients received conservative treatment. We compared surgical rib plate fixation with conservative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures. Results:The hospital stay for the surgical group was 13.12±4.21 days, whereas for the conservative group, it was 18.57±5.39 days (P<0.001). The duration of the thoracic intensive care unit (ICU) stay was 4.02±1.41 days in the surgical group and 5.06±1.80 days in the conservative group (P=0.001). The indwelling thoracic drainage tube time was 5.85±1.52 days in the surgical group and 8.26±1.96 days in the conservative group (P<0.001). The index of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2) was 91.05±10.88 mmHg 24 h after surgery whereas 86.49±11.69 mmHg 24 h after conservative treatment (P=0.036). The index of partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) was 37.80±2.86 mmHg 24 h after surgery and it was 39.08±2.46 mmHg 24 h after conservative treatment. The hospitalization cost was 6,206.44±371.42 USD for the surgical group and 4,544.61±524.79 USD for the conservative group (P<0.001). The number of rib displacement cases after treatment was 1 case in the surgical group and 2 cases in the conservative group (P=0.475). Atelectasis occurred in 10 cases in the surgical group and in 17 cases in the conservative group (P=0.046). Delayed hemopneumothorax occurred in 7 cases in the surgical group and in 16 cases in the conservative group (P=0.012). Conclusions:Surgical treatment is a safe and effective therapy for multiple rib fractures. Our data suggested that surgical treatment can significantly shorten the patients' pain-endurance time, hospitalization time, and can reduce complication incidence. Severe rib fracture patients might benefit from surgical fixation.

SUBMITTER: Liu Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6281531 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Surgical versus conservative therapy for multiple rib fractures: a retrospective analysis.

Liu Yongjing Y Xu Shun S Yu Qi Q Tao Yu Y Peng Leilei L Qi Shengbo S Han Hao H Chen Mengran M

Annals of translational medicine 20181101 22

<h4>Background</h4>In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effects of multiple rib fracture treatments using a rib plate fixator.<h4>Methods</h4>From June 2014 to December 2016, 110 cases of patients with multiple rib fractures were collected for our study from the 105th Hospital of PLA; 59 patients were treated by surgery, and 51 patients received conservative treatment. We compared surgical rib plate fixation with conservative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures.<h4>Res ...[more]

PMID: 30596069

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment for multiple rib fractures includes surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) or nonoperative management (NOM). Meta-analyses have demonstrated that SSRF results in faster recovery and lower long-term complication rates versus NOM. Our study evaluated postoperative outcomes for multiple rib fracture patients following SSRF versus NOM in a real-world, all-comer study design.MethodsMultiple rib fracture patients with inpatient admissions in the PREMIER hospital database from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2020, were identified. Outcomes included discharge disposition, and 3- and 12-month lung-related readmissions. Demographics, comorbidities, concurrent injuries at index, Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Scores, and provider characteristics were determined for all patients. Patients were excluded from the cohort if they had a thorax Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <2 (low severity patient) or a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤8 (extreme high severity patient). Stratum matching between SSRF and NOM patients was performed using fine stratification and weighting so that all patient data were kept in the final analysis. Outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models with quasinormal distribution and logit links.ResultsA total of 203,450 patients were included, of which 200,580 were treated with NOM and 2,870 with SSRF. Compared to NOM, patients with SSRF had higher rates of home discharge (62% SSRF vs. 58% NOM) and lower rates of lung-related readmissions (3 months, 3.1% SSRF vs. 4.0% NOM; 12 months, 6.2% SSRF vs. 7.6% NOM). The odds ratio (OR) for home or home health discharge in patients with SSRF versus NOM was 1.166 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.073-1.266; p = 0.0002). Similarly, ORs for lung-related readmission at 3- and 12-month were statistically lower in the patients treated with SSRF versus NOM (OR [3 months], 0.764 [95% CI, 0.606-0.963]; p = 0.0227 and OR [12 months], 0.799 [95% CI, 0.657-0.971]; p = 0.0245).ConclusionSurgical stabilization of rib fractures results in greater odds of home discharge and lower rates of lung-related readmissions compared with NOM at 12 months of follow-up.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no consensus on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization in multiple rib fractures in Asia, especially among patients with a non-flail rib fracture pattern. We aim to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) in an Asian population with multiple non-flail rib fractures.MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in this systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify studies conducted in Asia that included patients with multiple non-flail rib fractures in at least one of their treatment groups. The intervention of interest was SSRF, and the comparator was a nonoperative treatment. The duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) was the primary outcome. Posttreatment pain score, pneumonia, atelectasis, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), hospital length of stay (HLOS), need for tracheostomy, respiratory function, functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and mortality were identified as the secondary outcomes. A random effects model (REM) was used to pool data for outcomes reported in two or more studies.ResultsA total of 12 studies (n=2,440 patients) were included. There was a significantly shorter DMV {mean difference (MD): -5.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.64 to -0.81], P=0.02}, lower 4-week post-treatment pain score [standard mean difference (SMD): -2.24 (95% CI: -3.18 to -1.31), P<0.00001], lower risk for pneumonia [risk ratio (RR): 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95), P=0.04], lower risk for atelectasis [RR: 0.44, (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.65), P<0.0001], shorter ICU LOS [MD: -4.00 (95% CI: -6.33 to -1.66), P=0.0008], and shorter HLOS [MD: -6.54 (95% CI: -9.28 to -3.79), P<0.00001] in favor of SSRF. Effect estimates for the need for tracheostomy [RR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.42 to 1.08), P=0.10] and mortality [RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.37 to 2.41), P=0.90] were nonsignificant.ConclusionsIn the Asian population with mainly non-flail rib fracture patterns, SSRF was associated with shorter DMV, ICU LOS, and HLOS as well as lower risks for atelectasis and pneumonia, and pain scores after 4 weeks. The risk of mortality was comparable between treatment groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multiple rib fractures are common in trauma patients, who are prone to trauma-associated complications. Surgical or nonsurgical interventions for the aforementioned conditions remain controversial. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES:The purpose of our study was to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical prognosis of surgical fixation of multiple rib fractures in terms of (1) hospital-related endpoints (including duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay [LOS] and hospital LOS), (2) complications, (3) pulmonary function, and (4) pain scores. METHODS:We screened PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized and prospective studies published before January 2018. Individual effect sizes were standardized; the pooled effect size was calculated using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), and hospital LOS. Moreover, complications, pulmonary function, and pain were assessed. RESULTS:The surgical group had a reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference [WMD], -4.95 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.97 to -1.94; p = 0.001), ICU LOS (WMD, -4.81 days; 95% CI, -6.22 to -3.39; p < 0.001), and hospital LOS (WMD, -8.26 days; 95% CI, -11.73 to -4.79; p < 0.001) compared with the nonsurgical group. Complications likewise were less common in the surgical group, including pneumonia (odds ratio [OR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.64; p < 0.001), mortality (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.87; p = 0.030), chest wall deformity (OR, 0.02; 95% CI. 0.00-0.12; p < 0.001), dyspnea (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; p < 0.001), chest wall tightness (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.05-0.22; p < 0.001) and incidence of tracheostomy (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.20-0.57; p < 0.001). There were no differences between the surgical and nonsurgical groups in terms of pulmonary function, such as forced vital capacity (WMD, 6.81%; 95% CI: -8.86 to 22.48; p = 0.390) and pain scores (WMD, -11.41; 95% CI: -42.09 to 19.26; p = 0.470). CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis lends stronger support to surgical fixation, rather than conservative treatment, for multiple rib fractures. Nevertheless, additional trials should be conducted to investigate surgical indications, timing, and followup for quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level I, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Surgical versus conservative therapy for multiple rib fractures: a retrospective analysis.

Publications

Surgical versus conservative therapy for multiple rib fractures: a retrospective analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets