The Effects of Pulmonary Risk Factors and Combination Thoracic Osseous Fractures on Mortality and Outcomes of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Rib fixation for traumatic rib fractures is advocated to decrease morbidity and mortality in select patient populations. We intended to investigate the effect of combination osseous thoracic injuries on mortality with the hypothesis that combination injuries will worsen overall mortality and that SSRF will improve outcomes in combination injuries and in high-risk patients. METHODS: Patients with rib fractures were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Project registry from 2019. Patients were then divided into rib fracture(s) alone or in combination with sternal, thoracic vertebra, or scapula fracture. Patients were also categorized into those with COPD and smokers. Patients with AIS >3 outside of thorax were excluded. Patients were subcategorized into those who had rib fixation verse nonoperative management for all subgroups. Analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of rib fixation. RESULTS: A total of 111,066 patients were included for analysis. The overall mortality was 1.4%. Patients with COPD had over double the mortality risk, with an overall mortality of 3.4%. Combination injuries did not appear to increase mortality. SSRF did not decrease mortality; however, the number of patients in this group was too small to complete statistical analysis. The overall complication rate was 0.43%. There was a trend towards an increase in extrapulmonary complications in the group that underwent surgical fixation. DISCUSSION: Mortality from rib fractures with concomitant osseous thoracic fracture appears to be low. However, mortality is increased in patients with COPD regardless of rib fracture pattern. The number of patients who underwent SSRF was too small to make a statistical comparison.

Impact of surgical timing and type of operative procedure on outcomes in periprosthetic hip fractures: an observational study at an NHS trust centre in the UK.

PURPOSE: There is a global trend of increased periprosthetic fractures due to the growing number of arthroplasty procedures. The present study assessed the impact of factors such as time to surgery and type of surgery on the outcomes, which have been seldom evaluated for periprosthetic fractures. METHODS: An observational study was conducted on consecutive 87 patients within an NHS district hospital trust in the UK. Patients who underwent a complete hip replacement prior to the fracture, received fixation therapy, or underwent revision surgery within the specified time were screened. Patients were grouped in two ways: based on time to surgery and based on surgery type. Logistic regression models were performed to assess for statistically significant differences in post-operative complication, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates between groups, whilst adjusting for age, gender, and ASA grade. RESULTS: Forty-one patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), 29 patients underwent revision arthroplasty, and 17 patients were subjected to both, ORIF and revision arthroplasty. Sixty of the 87 patients were operated on > 48 h of injury. The median hospital stay was significantly lower in the ORIF plus revision arthroplasty group, versus other surgical groups (p < 0.05) whilst it was significantly higher in the group of patients who underwent surgery after 48 h of injury (p < 0.05). Numerically higher mortality was noted in the revision arthroplasty group (31.03%, p > 0.05). The group that was operated after 48 h of injury showed greater mortality but was comparable to the other group (25% vs. 14.81%, p > 0.05). For post-operative complications, none of the variables were significantly predictive (p > 0.05). However, for 30-day mortality, ASA grade (p = 0.04) and intra-operative complications (p = 0.0001) were significantly predictive. Additionally, for 1-year mortality, ASA grade (p = 0.004) was noted to be significantly predictive. CONCLUSION: Revision and delayed periprosthetic fracture management (> 48 h after injury) group showed a numerically greater mortality risk; however, this finding was not statistically significant. ASA grading at baseline is predictive of mortality for periprosthetic fractures.

Geriatric Distal Femur Fractures Treated with Arthroplasty Are Associated with Lower Mortality but Greater Costs Compared with Open Reduction and Internal Fixation at 30 Days.

Distal femur fractures (DFFs) are common injuries with significant morbidity. Surgical options include open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and/or intramedullary devices or a distal femur endoprosthesis (distal femur replacement [DFR]). A paucity of studies exist that compare the two modalities. The present study utilized a 1:2 propensity score match to compare 30-day outcomes of geriatric patients with DFFs who underwent an ORIF or DFR. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 2008 to 2019 were utilized to identify all patients who sustained a DFF and underwent either ORIF or DFR. This yielded 3,197 patients who underwent an ORIF versus 121 patients who underwent a DFR. A final sample of 363 patients (242 patients with ORIF vs. 121 with DFR) was obtained after a 1:2 propensity score match. Costs were obtained from the National Inpatient Sample database using multiple regression analysis and validated with a 7:3 train-test algorithm. Independent samples t-tests and chi-square analysis were conducted to assess cost and outcome differences, respectively. Patients who received a DFR had higher transfusion rates than ORIF (p = 0.021) and higher mean inpatient hospital costs (p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis for patients 80 years of age or older revealed higher 30-day unplanned readmission (0 vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001) and 30-day mortality (0 vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001) rates for patients undergoing ORIF compared with DFR. The total number of DFR cases needed to prevent one ORIF-related 30-day mortality for DFR for patients 80 years of age was 6 (95% confidence interval: 3.02-19.9). The mean hospital costs associated with preventing one case of death within 30 days from operation by undergoing DFR compared with ORIF was $176,021.39. Our results demonstrate higher rates of transfusion and increased inpatient costs among the DFR cohort compared with ORIF. However, we demonstrate lower rates of mortality for patients 80 years and older who underwent DFR versus ORIF. Future studies randomized controlled trials are necessary to validate the results of this study.