Door to door in 24: factors that allow surgical stabilization of rib fractures within 24 hours of admission.

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) should be performed early after injury. Factors that influence timing remain unknown. Our objective was to identify inherent variables that allow for early identification and treatment. We hypothesized that certain demographic, injury, and logistical factors are associated with SSRF <24 hours from admission. Methods: Retrospective review from an urban level 1 trauma center (10/2010-8/2019). Patients were grouped as SSRF <24 hours from admission vs. ≥24 hours. Demographics, transfer from an outside hospital (OSH), timing documentation, injury descriptors, surgeon on-call, and operative surgeon were collected. SSRF for chronic non-union was excluded. Results: Data from 173 patients were analyzed. Eighty-five patients (49%) were in the <24 hours group and 88 (51%) were in the ≥24 hours group. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Injury severity was significantly higher in the late group: increased Injury Severity Score (ISS; 16.5 vs. 21.0, P<0.01), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS; 15 vs. 14, P<0.01), more rib fractures (7 vs. 9, P=0.01), and increased incidence of face (6% vs. 16%, P=0.03), spine (22% vs. 47%, P<0.01), and pelvis fractures (8% vs. 25%, P<0.01). Patients admitted on a Wednesday were more likely to undergo early SSRF as compared to other days of the week (P=0.01) There was also a shorter time from the decision to perform SSRF to the actual operation in the early group, as compared to the late group (13 vs. 44 hours, P<0.01). Fifty (28.9%) SSRF cases were performed by the on-call surgeon; this percentage did not differ in the early vs. late group (33% vs. 25%, P=0.25). Patients needing pelvic fixation were more likely to be in the late group. Patients transferred from an OSH for SSRF were more likely to be in the early group (29% vs. 10%, P<0.01). Finally, likelihood of early surgery increased with increasing study year. Conclusions: Approximately one-half of SSRF cases were performed within 24 hours of admission. Factors that influence surgery within 24 hours of admission appear related to overall injury severity and systems issues, including day of admission, transfer from another facility, additional urgent pelvic surgery, and institutional experience with SSRF. Surgeon availability did not drive this disparity.

Earlier liposomal bupivacaine blocks improve analgesia and decrease opioid requirements for bariatric surgery patients.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal timing of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) transversus abdominis plane (TAP) blocks for bariatric surgery is unknown. We hypothesize that LB TAPs used prior to incision decrease narcotic requirements compared to the completion of surgery. METHODS: Single intuition review of 86 bariatric surgery patients who received LB TAP blocks from 2/2019 through 8/2020. 44 patients received LB at the beginning of the case (Beg) while 42 patients received LB at the completion (End). Morphine equivalent daily doses (MEDD) were compared. RESULTS: MEDD requirements for the Beg-LB group compared to the End-LB group were significantly less on POD 0 (4.8 vs 6.8 MEDD, p = 0.01) and POD 2 (16 vs 32, p = 0.04). Discharge oxycodone prescriptions were lower in the Beg-LB group (15 vs 20, p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received LB TAP blocks prior to bariatric surgery required fewer narcotics than patients who received the LB TAP at the conclusion of surgery.

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

PURPOSE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSION: 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.

Surgical Site Infection after Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: Rare but Morbid.

Background: Although surgical stabilization for rib fractures (SSRF) has been adopted widely over the past decade, little information is available regarding the prevalence and outcomes of post-operative surgical site infection (SSI). We hypothesized that SSI after SSRF is uncommon but morbid. Patients and Methods: Patients undergoing SSRF at a level 1 trauma center from 2010-2020 were reviewed. The primary outcome was the prevalence of SSI, documented by clinical examination, radiography, systemic markers of infection, and microbiology. Results: Of 228 patients undergoing SSRF, 167 (73.2%) were male, the median age was 53 years (P25-P75; 41-63 years), injury severity score (ISS) was 19 (P25-P75, 13-26), with a median of eight fractured ribs (P25-P75, 6-11). All stabilization plates were titanium. SSRF was typically performed on post-injury day one (P25-P75, 0-2 days) after trauma. All patients received antibiotic agents within 30 minutes of incision, and a median of four ribs (P25-P75, 3-6) were repaired. Four (1.8%) patients developed an SSI and all underwent implant removal. Two patients required implant removal within 30 days (on post-operative day seven and 17) and two for chronic infection at seven and 17 months after SSRF. The causative organism was methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) bacteria in all patients. After implant removal, three patients received intravenous and oral antibiotic agents, ranging from two to six weeks, without recurrent infection. No patient required additional SSRF. Conclusions: Surgical site infection after SSRF is rare but morbid and can become symptomatic within one week to 17 months. Implant removal results in complete recovery.

A decade of surgical stabilization of rib fractures: the effect of study year on patient selection, operative characteristics, and in-hospital outcome.

BACKGROUND: Many centers now perform surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF). This single center study aimed to investigate temporal trends by year in patient selection, operative characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes We hypothesized that, over time, patient selection, time to SSRF, operative time, and in-hospital outcomes varied significantly. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained SSRF database (2010 to 2020) was performed. Patients were stratified by year in which they underwent SSRF. The primary outcome was operative time, defined in minutes from incision to closure. Secondary outcomes were patient and operative characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess for temporal trends, corrected for confounders. The outcomes ventilator-, Intensive Care Unit-, and hospital-free days (VFD, IFD, and HFD, respectively) were categorized based on the group's medians, and complications were combined into a composite outcome. RESULTS: In total, 222 patients underwent SSRF on a median of one day after admission (P25-P75, 0-2). Patients had a median age of 54 years (P25-P75, 42-63), ISS of 19 (P25-P75, 13-26), RibScore of 3 (P25-P75, 2-5), and sustained a median of 8 fractured ribs (P25-P75, 6-11). In multivariable analysis, increasing study year was associated with an increase in operative time (p<0.0001). In addition, study year was associated with a significantly reduced odds of complications (Odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI], 0.63-0.92; p=0.005), VFD < 28 days (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92; p=0.003), IFD < 24 days (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.91; p=0.002), and HFD < 18 days (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.76; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: In-hospital outcomes after SSRF improved over time. Unexpectedly, operative time increased. The reason for this finding is likely multifactorial and may be related to patient selection, onboarding of new surgeons, fracture characteristics, and minimally invasive exposures. Due to potential for confounding, study year should be accounted for when evaluating outcomes of SSRF.

A randomized clinical trial of single dose liposomal bupivacaine versus indwelling analgesic catheter in patients undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Locoregional analgesia (LRA) remains underused in patients with chest wall injuries. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) offers an opportunity to deliver surgeon-directed LRA under direct visualization at the site of surgical intervention. We hypothesized that a single-dose liposomal bupivacaine (LB) intercostal nerve block provides comparable analgesia to an indwelling, peripheral nerve plane analgesic catheter with continuous bupivacaine infusion (IC), each placed during SSRF. METHODS: Noninferiority, single-center, randomized clinical trial (2017-2020) was performed. Patients were randomized to receive either IC or LB during SSRF. The IC was tunneled into the surgical field (subscapular space), and LB involved thoracoscopic intercostal blocks of ribs 3 to 8. The primary outcome was the Sequential Clinical Assessment of Respiratory Function score, measured daily for 5 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included daily narcotic equivalents and failure of primary LRA, defined as requiring a second LRA modality. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were enrolled: 16 IC and 18 LB. Age, Injury Severity Score, RibScore, Blunt Pulmonary Contusion Score, and use of nonnarcotic analgesics was similar between groups. Duration of IC was 4.5 days. There were three failures in the IC group versus one in the LB group (p = 0.23). There was no significant difference in Sequential Clinical Assessment of Respiratory Function score between the IC and LB groups. On postoperative days 2 to 4, narcotic requirements were less than half in the LB, as compared with the IC group; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Average wholesale price was US $605 for IC and US $434 for LB. CONCLUSION: In this noninferiority trial, LB provided at least comparable and potentially superior LRA as compared with IC among patients undergoing SSRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level II.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures in octogenarians and beyond-what are the outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Prospective studies of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have excluded elderly patients, and no study has exclusively addressed the ≥80-year-old subgroup. We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with decreased mortality in trauma patients 80 years or older. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study involving eight centers. Patients who underwent SSRF from 2015 to 2020 were matched to controls by study center, age, injury severity score, and presence of intracranial hemorrhage. Patients with chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score less than 3, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score greater than 2, death within 24 hours, and desire for no escalation of care were excluded. A subgroup analysis compared early (0-2 days postinjury) to late (3-7 days postinjury) SSRF. Poisson regression accounting for clustered data by center calculated the relative risk (RR) of the primary outcome of mortality for SSRF versus nonoperative management. RESULTS: Of 360 patients, 133 (36.9%) underwent SSRF. Compared with nonoperative patients, SSRF patients were more severely injured and more likely to receive locoregional analgesia. There were 31 hospital deaths among the entire sample (8.6%). Multivariable regression demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality for the SSRF group, as compared with the nonoperative group (RR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.69; p < 0.01). However, SSRF patients were more likely to develop pneumonia, and had an increased duration of both mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. There were no differences in discharge destination, although the SSRF group was less likely to be discharged on narcotics (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.90; p = 0.01). There was no difference in adjusted mortality between the early and late SSRF subgroups. CONCLUSION: Patients selected for SSRF were substantially more injured versus those managed nonoperatively. Despite this, SSRF was independently associated with decreased mortality. With careful patient selection, SSRF may be considered a viable treatment option in octogenarian/nonagenarians. 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).

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.

Characterization and influence of ipsilateral scapula fractures among patients who undergo surgical stabilization of sub-scapular rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Current decision algorithms involving surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) do not consider either specific fracture locations or other chest wall bony injuries. Our objective was to characterize the impact of scapula fractures on morbidity among patients who underwent fixation of sub-scapular rib fractures. We hypothesized that an ipsilateral scapula fracture was associated with poor acute and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of two institutions' prospectively maintained SSRF databases (October 2010 to January 2019). Patients who underwent repair of ≥ 1 sub-scapular rib fracture were included. Patients were grouped by the presence of an ipsilateral scapula fracture. Outcomes were acute SSRF complications, long-term rib implant removal, and quality of life via phone survey. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were analyzed; 53 (36.8%) had an ipsilateral scapula fracture. Patients with a scapula fracture had a higher injury severity score (p = 0.02), degree of pulmonary contusion (p < 0.01), and RibScore (p < 0.01). The overall incidence of both acute re-operation (n = 4, 2.8%) and long-term implant removal (n = 5, 3.8%) following SSRF was low and did not vary by the presence of a scapula fracture. Only twenty-one patients completed phone questionnaires a median of 38 months after SSRF; both shoulder and rib outcomes were excellent and did not vary by the presence of a scapula fracture. CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral scapula fractures are common in patients who undergo surgical stabilization of sub-scapular rib fractures. Despite higher injury severity, patients with an ipsilateral scapula fracture did not incur worse outcomes.

Quantifying the expense of deferring surgical stabilization of rib fractures: Operative management of rib fractures is associated with significantly lower charges.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains a relatively controversial operation, which is often deferred because of concern about expense. The objective of this study was to determine the charges for SSRF versus medical management during index admission for rib fractures. We hypothesize that SSRF is associated with increased charge as compared with medical management. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database of patients with ≥3 displaced rib fractures admitted to a level 1 trauma center from 2010 to 2019. Patients who underwent SSRF (operative management [OM]) were compared with those managed medically (nonoperative management [NOM]). The total hospital charge between OM and NOM was compared with univariate analysis, followed by backward stepwise regression and mediation analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 279 patients were included. The majority (75%) were male, the median age was 54 years, and the median Injury Severity Scale score (ISS) was 21. A total of 182 patients underwent OM, whereas 97 underwent NOM. Compared with NOM, OM patients had a lower ISS (18 vs. 22, p = 0.004), less traumatic brain injury (14% vs. 31%, p = 0.0006), shorter length of stay (10 vs. 14 days, p = 0.001), and decreased complications. After controlling for the differences between OM and NOM patients, OM was significantly associated with decreased charges (ß = US $35,105, p = 0.01). Four other predictors, with management, explained 30% of the variance in charge (R = 0.30, p < 0.0001): scapular fracture (ß = US $471,967, p < 0.0001), ISS per unit increase (ß = US $4,139, p < 0.0001), long bone fracture (ß = US $52,176, p = 0.01), bilateral rib fractures (ß = US $34,392, p = 0.01), and Glasgow Coma Scale per unit decrease (ß = US $17,164, p < 0.0001). The difference in charge between NOM and OM management was most strongly, although only partially, mediated by length of stay. CONCLUSION: Our analysis found that OM, as compared with NOM, was independently associated with decreased hospital charges. These data refute the prevailing notion that SSRF should be withheld because of concerns for increased cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level II.

A multicenter, prospective, controlled clinical trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures in patients with severe, nonflail fracture patterns (Chest Wall Injury Society NONFLAIL).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) in patients without flail chest has not been studied specifically. We hypothesized that SSRF improves outcomes among patients with displaced rib fractures in the absence of flail chest. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, controlled, clinical trial (12 centers) comparing SSRF within 72 hours to medical management. Inclusion criteria were three or more ipsilateral, severely displaced rib fractures without flail chest. The trial involved both randomized and observational arms at patient discretion. The primary outcome was the numeric pain score (NPS) at 2-week follow-up. Narcotic consumption, spirometry, pulmonary function tests, pleural space complications (tube thoracostomy or surgery for retained hemothorax or empyema >24 hours from admission) and both overall and respiratory disability-related quality of life (RD-QoL) were also compared. RESULTS: One hundred ten subjects were enrolled. There were no significant differences between subjects who selected randomization (n = 23) versus observation (n = 87); these groups were combined for all analyses. Of the 110 subjects, 51 (46.4%) underwent SSRF. There were no significant baseline differences between the operative and nonoperative groups. At 2-week follow-up, the NPS was significantly lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (2.9 vs. 4.5, p < 0.01), and RD-QoL was significantly improved (disability score, 21 vs. 25, p = 0.03). Narcotic consumption also trended toward being lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (0.5 vs. 1.2 narcotic equivalents, p = 0.05). During the index admission, pleural space complications were significantly lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (0% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, SSRF performed within 72 hours improved the primary outcome of NPS at 2-week follow-up among patients with three or more displaced fractures in the absence of flail chest. These data support the role of SSRF in patients without flail chest. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level II.

The Sequential Clinical Assessment of Respiratory Function (SCARF) score: A dynamic pulmonary physiologic score that predicts adverse outcomes in critically ill rib fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: Rib fracture scoring systems are limited by a lack of serial pulmonary physiologic variables. We created the Sequential Clinical Assessment of Respiratory Function (SCARF) score and hypothesized that admission, maximum, and rising scores predict adverse outcomes among critically ill rib fracture patients. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of rib fracture patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) at a Level I trauma center from August 2017 to June 2018. The SCARF score was developed a priori and validated using the cohort. One point was assigned for: <50% predicted, respiratory rate >20, numeric pain score ≥5, and inadequate cough. Demographics, injury patterns, analgesics, and adverse pulmonary outcomes were abstracted. Performance characteristics of the score were assessed using the receiver operator curve area under the curve. RESULTS: Three hundred forty scores were available from 100 patients. Median admission and maximum SCARF score was 2 (range 0-4). Likelihood of pneumonia (p = 0.04), high oxygen requirement (p < 0.01), and prolonged ICU length of stay (p < 0.01) were significantly associated with admission and maximum scores. The receiver operator curve area under the curve for the maximum SCARF score for these outcomes were 0.86, 0.76, and 0.79, respectively. In 10 patients, the SCARF score worsened from admission to day 2; these patients demonstrated increased likelihood of pneumonia (p = 0.04) and prolonged ICU length of stay (p = 0.07). Patients who developed complications maintained a SCARF score one point higher throughout ICU stay compared with patients who did not (p = 0.04). The SCARF score was significantly associated with both narcotic (p = 0.03) and locoregional anesthesia (p = 0.03) usage. CONCLUSION: Admission, maximum, daily, and rising scores were associated with utilization of pain control therapies and development of adverse outcomes. The SCARF score may be used to guide therapies for critically ill rib fracture patients, with a proposed threshold greater than 2. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II.

Barriers to conducting a multi-center randomized controlled trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (and how to overcome them).

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has become a standardized procedure, routinely performed at trauma centers over the last 40 years, however, it remains a controversial practice. Multicenter, randomized controlled trials (RCT) would provide compelling evidence in the efficacy of SSRF but there are theoretical obstacles involved with execution and design of this type of investigation. Through the systematic review of current literature on the topics of SSRF for flail and non-fail patterns, medical device industry conflicts of interests, working with international review boards (IRB), the surveyed opinions of surgeons, and through the experience gained from conducting a multicenter RCT on SSRF, it was possible to identify the major barriers that come with successful implementation of this type of study. In identifying these obstacles, it was then possible to propose their solutions, specifically to the issues that make the effort underpowered, underfunded, understaffed, with not enough time for completion. These barriers can be overcome with understanding, up front, that a mutlicenter RCT of SSRF will involve a multi-year and multi-hundred thousand dollar commitment, with support from parent organizations, and a dedicated, full-time research staff (and the solutions of how to overcome them). These barriers stem from poor planning which result specifically in an effort that is underpowered, under funded, under staffed, with not enough time for completion.

A double-blind, randomized controlled trial of gabapentin vs. placebo for acute pain management in critically ill patients with rib fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving adequate pain control for rib fractures remains challenging; prescription of alternatives to narcotics is imperative to curtail the current opioid epidemic. Although gabapentin has shown promise following elective thoracic procedures, its efficacy in patients with rib fractures remains unstudied. We hypothesized that gabapentin, as compared to placebo, would both improve acute pain control and decrease narcotic use among critically ill patients with rib fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients admitted to the trauma surgery service from November 2016 - November 2017 at an urban, Level I trauma center with one or more rib fractures were randomized to either gabapentin 300 mg thrice daily or placebo for one month following their injury. Daily numeric pain scores, opioid consumption, oxygen requirement, respiratory rate, and incentive spirometry recordings during the index admission, as well as and one-month quality of life survey data were abstracted. RESULTS: Forty patients were randomized. The groups were well matched with respect to age, gender, prior narcotic use, tobacco use, and prior respiratory disease. Although the median RibScore did not differ between groups, the gabapentin group had a higher median number of ribs fractured as compared to the placebo group (7 vs. 5, respectively). Degree of pulmonary contusion and injury severity score were similar between groups. Use of loco-regional anesthetic modalities did not differ between groups. Daily numeric pain scores, opioid consumption, oxygen requirement, respiratory rate, and incentive spirometry recordings were similar between both groups. No benefit was observed when adding gabapentin to a multi-modal analgesic regimen for rib fractures. There were no instances of pneumonia, respiratory failure, or mortality in either group. Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay were similar between groups. Both overall and chest-specific quality of life was equivalent between groups at one month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this group of critically ill patients with rib fractures, gabapentin did not improve acute outcomes for up to one month of treatment.

The Metabolopathy of Tissue Injury, Hemorrhagic Shock, and Resuscitation in a Rat Model.

INTRODUCTION: The metabolic consequences of trauma induce significant clinical pathology. In this study, we evaluate the independent, metabolic contributions of tissue injury (TI) and combined tissue injury and hemorrhagic shock (TI/HS) using mass spectrometry (MS) metabolomics in a controlled animal model of critical injury. METHODS: Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 14) underwent TI alone or TI/HS, followed by resuscitation with normal saline and shed blood. Plasma was collected (baseline, post-laparotomy, post-HS, post-resuscitation) for ultra-high pressure liquid chromatography MS-metabolomics. Repeated-measures ANOVA with Tukey multiple column comparison test compared the fold change of metabolite concentration among the animal groups at corresponding time points. RESULTS: Four hundred forty metabolites were identified. TI alone did not change the metabolite levels versus baseline. TI/HS induced changes in metabolites from glycolysis, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, the pentose phosphate, fatty acid and glutathione homeostasis pathways, sulfur metabolism, and urea cycle versus TI alone. Following resuscitation many metabolites normalized to TI alone levels, including lactate, most tri-carboxylic acid metabolites, most urea cycle metabolites, glutathione disulfide, and some metabolites from both the pentose phosphate pathway and sulfur metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: Significant changes occur immediately following TI/HS versus TI alone. These metabolic changes are not explained by dilution as a number of metabolites remained unchanged or even increased following resuscitation. The differential metabolic changes resulting from TI alone and TI/HS provide foundation for future investigations severe injury in humans, where TI and HS are often concurrent. This investigation provides a foundation to evaluate metabolic-related outcomes and design-targeted resuscitation strategies.