An initiative to assess and improve the resources and patient care processes used among Chest Wall Injury Society collaborative centers study (CWIS-CC2).

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers that epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers. The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. METHODS: A survey was performed including all CWIS Collaborative Centers evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each chest wall injury center care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US-based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16 of 20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5 of 20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80% (8 of 10) with advanced practice providers and 70% (7 of 10) with care coordinators. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support, and 35% (7 of 20) have surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF)-related grants. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have marketing support, and 30% (8 of 20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4 (1-9) surgeons perform SSRFs. In the majority of trauma centers, the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. CONCLUSION: Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal chest wall injury center. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Better late than never-a single-center review of delayed rib fixation for symptomatic rib fractures and nonunions.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) has become an emerging therapy for treatment of patients with rib fractures. More commonly, it is used in the acute setting; however, delayed SSRF can be utilized for symptomatic rib fracture nonunions. Here, we describe our institution's experience with delayed SSRF, hypothesizing it is safe and resolves patient symptoms. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients presenting to our Level I trauma center to undergo delayed SSRF for symptomatic nonunions from January 2017 to September 2022. Delayed SSRF was defined as SSRF over 2 weeks in the outpatient setting. Basic demographics were obtained. Outcomes of interest included mean pain score (preoperatively and postoperatively), intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and resolution of preoperative symptoms, specifically chest wall instability, with return to activities of daily living (ADLs). RESULTS: Forty-four patients met inclusion criteria with a total of 156 symptomatic nonunion rib fractures that received delayed SSRF. The average age was 59.2 ± 11.9 years and median number of days from injury to SSRF was 172.5 (interquartile range, 27.5-200). The average number rib fractures plated per patient 3.5 ± 1.8. Only three patients required ICU admission postoperatively for no longer than 2 days. Median hospital LOS was 2 days (interquartile range 1-3 days). Average preoperative and postoperative pain score was 6.8 ± 1.9 and 2.02 ± 1.5, respectively ( p < 0.001). Chest wall instability and preoperative symptoms resolved in 93.2% of patients postoperatively ( p < 0.001). Two patients (4.5%) had postoperative complications that resolved after additional surgical intervention. Rib fracture healing was demonstrated on radiographic imaging during postoperative follow-up. CONCLUSION: Delayed SSRF is safe and demonstrates significant resolution of preoperative symptoms by decreasing pain, improving chest wall stability, and allowing patients to return to activities of daily living. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is associated with better return on investment for a health care institution than nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) continues to gain popularity due to patient benefits. However, little has been produced regarding the economic benefits of SSRF and its impact on hospital metrics such as Vizient. The aim of this study was to explore these benefits hypothesizing SSRF will demonstrate positive return on investment (ROI) for a health care institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all rib fracture patients over 5 years at our Level I trauma center. Patients were grouped into SSRF versus nonoperative management. Basic demographics were obtained including case mix index (CMI). Outcomes included narcotic requirements in morphine milliequivalents prior to discharge, mortality, and discharge disposition. Furthermore, actual hospital length of stay (ALOS) versus Vizient expected length of stay were compared between cohorts. Contribution margin (CM) was also calculated. Independent t-test, paired t-test, and linear regression analysis were performed, and significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,639 patients were included; 230 (14%) underwent SSRF. Age, gender, and Injury Severity Score were similar. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients had more ribs fractured (7 vs. 4; p < 0.001) and more patients with flail chest (43.5% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients also had a significantly higher CMI (4.33 vs. 2.78; p = 0.001). Narcotic requirements and mortality were less in the SSRF cohort; 155 versus 246 morphine milliequivalents ( p < 0.001) and 1.7% versus 7.1% ( p = 0.003), respectively. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients were more likely to be discharged home (70.4% vs. 63.7%; p = 0.006). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients demonstrated shorter ALOS where nonoperative management patients demonstrated longer ALOS compared with Vizient expected length of stay. Contribution margins for SSRF patients were significantly higher and linear regression analysis showed a CM $1,128.14 higher per patient undergoing SSRF ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SSRF demonstrate a significant ROI for a health care organization. Despite SSRF patients having a higher CMI, they were able to be discharged sooner than expected by Vizient calculations resulting in better a CM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.