Sternal fixation for traumatic sternal fractures demonstrates better long-term quality of life outcomes than nonoperative management: A survey analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Sternal fractures are rare, causing significant pain, respiratory compromise, and decreased upper extremity range of motion. Sternal fixation (SF) is a viable treatment option; however, there remains a paucity of literature demonstrating long-term benefits. This study examined long-term outcomes of SF, hypothesizing they have better long-term quality of life (QoL) than patients managed nonoperatively (NOM). METHODS: This was a survey study at our level 1 academic hospital. All patients diagnosed with a sternal fracture were included from January 2016 to July 2021. Patients were grouped whether they received SF or NOM. Basic demographics were obtained. Three survey phone call attempts were conducted. The time from injury to survey was recorded. Outcomes included responses to the QoL survey, which included mobility, self-care, usual activities, chest pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. The survey scale is 1-5 (1 = worst condition possible; 5 = best possible condition). Patients were asked to rate their current health on a scale of 0-100 (100 being the best possible health imaginable). Chi square and t-tests were used. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty four patients were surveyed. Sixty nine underwent SF and 315 were NOM. Thirty-eight (55.1%) SF patients and 126 (40%) NOM patients participated in the survey. Basic demographics were similar. Average days from sternal fracture to survey was 1198 (±492) for the SF group and 1454 (±567) for the NOM group. The SF cohort demonstrated statistically significant better QoL than the NOM cohort for all categories except anxiety/depression. CONCLUSION: SF provides better long-term QoL and better overall health scores compared to NOM.

Rural Trauma Team Development Course Positively Impacts its Desired Objectives.

BACKGROUND: The Rural Trauma Team Development Course (RTTDC) is designed to help rural hospitals better organize and manage trauma patients with limited resources. Although RTTDC is well-established, limited literature exists regarding improvement in the overall objectives for which the course was designed. The aim of this study was to analyze the goals of RTTDC, hypothesizing improvements in course objectives after course completion. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study from 2015 through 2021. All hospitals completing the RTTDC led by our Level 1, academic trauma hospital were included. Our institutional database was queried for individual patient data. Cohorts were delineated before and after RTTDC was provided to the rural hospital. Basic demographics were obtained. Outcomes of interest included: Emergency Department (ED) dwell time, decision time to transfer, number of total images/computed tomography scans obtained, and mortality. Chi square and non-parametric median test were used. Significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Sixteen rural hospitals were included with a total of 472 patients transferred (240 before and 232 after). Patient demographics were similar before and after RTTDC. ED dwell time was significantly reduced by 64 min (P = .003) and decision to transfer time was cut by 62 min (P = .004) after RTTDC. Mean total radiographic images and CT scans were significantly reduced (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively) after RTTDC. Mortality was unaffected by RTTDC completion (P = .941). CONCLUSION: The RTTDC demonstrates decreased ED dwell time, decision time to transfer, and number of radiographic images obtained prior to transfer. More rural hospitals should be offered this course.

Handoffs and transitions of care: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission reports that at least half of communication breakdowns occur during handovers or transitions of care. There is no consensus on how best to approach the transfer of care within acute care surgery (ACS). We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current data on handoffs and transitions of care in ACS patients and evaluate the impact of standardization and formalized communication processes. METHODS: Clinically relevant questions regarding handoffs and transitions of care with clearly defined patient Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes were determined. These centered around specific transitions of care within the setting of ACS, specifically perioperative interactions, emergency medical services and trauma team interactions, and intra/interfloor and intensive care unit (ICU) interactions. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were identified for analysis. These included 5,113 patients in the standardized handoff group and 5,293 in the current process group. Standardized handoffs reduced handover errors for perioperative interactions and preventable adverse events for intra/interfloor and ICU interactions. There were insufficient data to evaluate outcomes of clinical complications and medical errors. CONCLUSION: We conditionally recommend a standardized handoff in the field of ACS, including perioperative interactions, emergency medical services and trauma team interactions, and intra/interfloor and ICU interactions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.