Together is better - RibScore and SCARF in the prediction of pulmonary complications and association with SSRF.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of patients with rib fractures requires identification of those patients at risk of pulmonary complications. It is also important to determine which patients would benefit from Surgical Stabilisation of Rib Fractures (SSRF). This study aims to validate two scoring systems (RibScore and SCARF score) in predicting complications and association with SSRF in an Australian trauma population. Clinical observation suggests that complications and criteria for SSRF is associated with anatomical and physiological factors. Therefore it is hypothesized that utilisation of an anatomical (RibScore) and physiological (SCARF) in conjunction will have improved predictive ability. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study of rib fracture patients admitted to an Australian Level I trauma centre from Jan 2017 to Jan 2021. RibScore and SCARF score were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors associated with complications and SSRF, as well the scoring systems' ability via ROC AUC. RESULTS: 1157 patients were included. Higher median RibScore (1vs0; p < 0.001) and SCARF score (3vs1, p < 0.001) was associated with development of complications. Similarly for SSRF, RibScore (3vs0; p < 0.001), SCARF score (3vs1; p < 0.001) were higher. On multivariate analysis, increasing RibScore and SCARF score were associated with an increased risk of respiratory failure, pneumonia, death, and SSRF. The sensitivity for a patient with a high risk score in either RibScore or SCARF increased to 96.3 % in identifying pulmonary complications (from 66.7 % in RibScore and 88 % in SCARF, when used individually) and 91.9 % in identifying association with SSRF (from 86.5 % in RibScore and 70.3 % in SCARF). CONCLUSION: RibScore and SCARF score demonstrate predictive ability for complications and SSRF in an Australian trauma rib fracture population. Combining a radiological score with a clinical scoring system demonstrates improved sensitivity over each score individually for identifying patients at risk of complications from rib fractures, those who may require SSRF, and those who are low risk. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective Cohort Study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Favourable outcome in survivors of CPR-related chest wall injuries.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of studies focusing on long-term chest function after chest wall injury due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to investigate long-term pain, lung function, physical function, and fracture healing after manual or mechanical CPR and in patients with and without flail chest. METHODS: Patients experiencing out-of-hospital cardiac arrest between 2013 and 2020 and transported to Sahlgrenska University Hospital were identified. Survivors who had undergone a computed tomography (CT) showing chest wall injury were contacted. Thirty-five patients answered a questionnaire regarding pain, physical function, and quality of life and 25 also attended a clinical examination to measure the respiratory and physical functions 3.9 (SD 1.7, min 2-max 8) years after the CPR. In addition, 22 patients underwent an additional CT scan to evaluate fracture healing. RESULTS: The initial CT showed bilateral rib fractures in all but one patient and sternum fracture in 69 %. At the time of the follow-up none of the patients had persistent pain, however, two patients were experiencing local discomfort in the chest wall. Lung function and thoracic expansion were significantly lower compared to reference values (FVC 14 %, FEV1 18 %, PEF 10 % and thoracic expansion 63 %) (p < 0.05). Three of the patients had remaining unhealed injuries. Patients who had received mechanical CPR in additional to manual CPR had a lower peak expiratory flow (80 vs 98 % of predicted values) (p=0.030) =0.030) and those having flail chest had less range of motion in the thoracic spine (84 vs 127 % of predicted) (p = 0.019) otherwise the results were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: None of the survivors had long-term pain after CPR-related chest wall injuries. Despite decreased lower lung function and thoracic expansion, most patients had no limitations in physical mobility. Only minor differences were seen after manual vs. mechanical CPR or with and without flail chest.