Nonoperative treatment of multiple rib fractures, the results to beat: International multicenter prospective cohort study among 845 patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment (i.e. nonoperative or operative) for patients with multiple rib fractures remains debated. Studies that compare treatments are rationalized by the alleged poor outcomes of nonoperative treatment. METHODS: The aim of this prospective international multicenter cohort study (between January 2018 and March 2021) with one-year follow-up, was to report contemporary outcomes of nonoperatively treated patients with multiple rib fractures. Including 845 patients with three or more rib fractures. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), (pulmonary) complications, and quality of life. RESULTS: Mean age was 57.7 ± 17.0 years, median Injury Severity Score was 17 (13-22) and the median number of rib fractures was 6 (4-8). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.5% (n = 13), 112 (13.3%) patients had pneumonia and four (0.5%) patients developed a symptomatic non-union. The median HLOS was 7 (4-13) days, and median intensive care unit length of stay was 2 (1-5) days. Mean EQ-5D-5L index value was 0.83 ± 0.18 one year after trauma. Polytrauma patients had a median HLOS of 10 (6-18) days, a pneumonia rate of 17.6% (n = 77) and mortality rate of 1.7% (n = 7). Elderly patients (≥65 years) had a median HLOS of 9 (5-15) days, a pneumonia rate of 19.7% (n = 57) and mortality rate of 4.1% (n = 12). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, nonoperative treatment of patients with multiple rib fractures shows low mortality and morbidity rate and good quality of life after one year. Future studies evaluating the benefit of operative stabilisation should use contemporary outcomes to establish the therapeutic margin of rib fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic/Care Management.

Outcome of severely injured patients in a unique trauma system with 24/7 double trauma surgeon on-call service.

BACKGROUND: The presence of in-house attending trauma surgeons has improved efficiency of processes in the treatment of polytrauma patients. However, literature remains equivocal regarding the influence of the presence of in-house attendings on mortality. In our hospital there is a double trauma surgeon on-call system. In this system an in-house trauma surgeon is 24/7 backed up by a second trauma surgeon to assist with urgent surgery or multiple casualties. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcome in severely injured patients in this unique trauma system. METHODS: From 2014 to 2021, a prospective population-based cohort consisting of consecutive polytrauma patients aged ≥ 15 years requiring both urgent surgery (≤ 24h) and admission to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) was investigated. Demographics, treatment, outcome parameters and pre- and in-hospital transfer times were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred thirteen patients with a median age of 44 years (71% male), and median Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 33 were included. Mortality rate was 19% (68% due to traumatic brain injury). All patients stayed ≤ 32 min in ED before transport to either CT or OR. Fifty-one percent of patients who needed damage control surgery (DCS) had a more deranged physiology, needed more blood products, were more quickly in OR with shorter time in OR, than patients with early definitive care (EDC). There was no difference in mortality rate between DCS and EDC patients. Fifty-six percent of patients had surgery during off-hours. There was no difference in outcome between patients who had surgery during daytime and during off-hours. Death could possibly have been prevented in 1 exsanguinating patient (1.7%). CONCLUSION: In this cohort of severely injured patients in need of urgent surgery and ICU support it was demonstrated that surgical decision making was swift and accurate with low preventable death rates. 24/7 Physical presence of a dedicated trauma team has likely contributed to these good outcomes.

In patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, does fracture fixation of the clavicle improve clinical outcomes? A multicenter prospective cohort study of 232 patients.

BACKGROUND: Clavicle and rib fractures are often sustained concomitantly. The combination of injuries may result in decreased stability of the chest wall, making these patients prone to (respiratory) complications and prolonged hospitalization. This study aimed to assess whether adding chest wall stability by performing clavicle fixation improves clinical outcomes in patients with concurrent clavicle and rib fractures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients admitted between January 2018 and March 2021 with concurrent ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was observed between clavicle plate fixation and HLOS (mean difference, 2.3 days; 95% confidence interval, -2.1 to 6.8; p = 0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which 5 underwent secondary clavicle fixation. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that, in patients with combined clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle reduces HLOS, pain, or (pulmonary) complications, nor that it improves quality of life. STUDY TYPE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Non-operative vs. operative treatment for multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8-9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI - 0.2-0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. CONCLUSIONS: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

Epidemiology of combined clavicle and rib fractures: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the incidence of combined clavicle and rib fractures and the association between these two injuries. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on the 14th of August 2020. Outcome measures were incidence, hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit admission and length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), mortality, chest tube duration, Constant-Murley score, union and complications. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 71,572 patients were included, comprising five studies on epidemiology and two studies on treatment. Among blunt chest trauma patients, 18.6% had concomitant clavicle and rib fractures. The incidence of rib fractures in polytrauma patients with clavicle fractures was 56-60.6% versus 29% in patients without clavicle fractures. Vice versa, 14-18.8% of patients with multiple rib fractures had concomitant clavicle fractures compared to 7.1% in patients without multiple rib fractures. One study reported no complications after fixation of both injuries. Another study on treatment, reported shorter ILOS and less complications among operatively versus conservatively treated patients (5.4 ± 1.5 versus 21 ± 13.6 days). CONCLUSION: Clavicle fractures and rib fractures are closely related in polytrauma patients and almost a fifth of all blunt chest trauma patients sustain both injuries. Definitive conclusions could not be drawn on treatment of the combined injury. Future research should further investigate indications and benefits of operative treatment of this injury.

Epidemiology and outcome of rib fractures: a nationwide study in the Netherlands.

PURPOSE: Rib fractures following thoracic trauma are frequently encountered injuries and associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to provide current data on the epidemiology, in-hospital outcomes and 30-day mortality of rib fractures, and to evaluate these results for different subgroups. METHODS: A nationwide retrospective cohort study was performed with the use of the Dutch Trauma Registry which covers 99% of the acutely admitted Dutch trauma population. All patients aged 18 years and older admitted to the hospital between January 2015 and December 2017 with one or more rib fractures were included. Incidence rates were calculated using demographic data from the Dutch Population Register. Subgroup analyses were performed for flail chest, polytrauma, primary thoracic trauma, and elderly patients. RESULTS: A total of 14,850 patients were admitted between 2015 and 2017 with one or more rib fractures, which was 6.0% of all trauma patients. Of these, 573 (3.9%) patients had a flail chest, 4438 (29.9%) were polytrauma patients, 9273 (63.4%) were patients with primary thoracic trauma, and 6663 (44.9%) were elderly patients. The incidence rate of patients with rib fractures for the entire cohort was 29 per 100.000 person-years. The overall 30-day mortality was 6.9% (n = 1208) with higher rates observed in flail chest (11.9%), polytrauma (14.8%), and elderly patients (11.7%). The median hospital length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 3-11) and 37.3% were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). CONCLUSIONS: Rib fractures are a relevant and frequently occurring problem among the trauma population. Subgroup analyses showed that there is a substantial heterogeneity among patients with rib fractures with considerable differences regarding the epidemiology, in-hospital outcomes, and 30-day mortality.

Is a chest radiograph indicated after chest tube removal in trauma patients? A systematic review.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the necessity of routine chest radiographs after chest tube removal in ventilated and nonventilated trauma patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL on May 15, 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria. Primary outcome measures were abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph (e.g., recurrence of a pneumothorax, hemothorax, pleural effusion) and reintervention after chest tube removal. Secondary outcome measures were emergence of new clinical symptoms or vital signs after chest tube removal. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included, consisting of seven studies on nonventilated patients and seven studies on combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients, all together containing 1,855 patients. Nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 10% (range across studies, 0-38%) of all chest tubes and 24% (range, 0-78%) of those underwent reintervention. In the studies that reported on clinical symptoms after chest tube removal, all patients who underwent reintervention also had symptoms of recurrent pathology. Combined cohorts of ventilated and nonventilated patients had abnormalities on postremoval chest radiograph in 20% (range, 6-49%) of all chest tubes and 45% (range, 8-63%) of those underwent reintervention. CONCLUSION: In nonventilated patients, one in ten developed recurrent pathology after chest tube removal and almost a quarter of them underwent reintervention. In two studies that reported on clinical symptoms, all reinterventions were performed in patients with symptoms of recurrent pathology. In these two studies, omission of routine postremoval chest radiograph seemed safe. However, current literature remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on this matter, and future studies are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review study, level IV.

Complications and outcome after rib fracture fixation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in operative treatment for multiple rib fractures and flail chest. However, to date, there is no comprehensive study that extensively focused on the incidence of complications associated with rib fracture fixation. Furthermore, there is insufficient knowledge about the short- and long-term outcomes after rib fracture fixation. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies reporting on complications and/or outcome of surgical treatment after rib fractures. Complications were subdivided into (1) surgery- and implant-related complications, (2) bone-healing complications, (3) pulmonary complications, and (4) mortality. RESULTS: Forty-eight studies were included, with information about 1,952 patients who received rib fracture fixation because of flail chest or multiple rib fractures. The overall risk of surgery- and implant-related complications was 10.3%, with wound infection in 2.2% and fracture-related infection in 1.3% of patients. Symptomatic nonunion was a relatively uncommon complication after rib fixation (1.3%). Pulmonary complications were found in 30.9% of patients, and the overall mortality was 2.9%, of which one third appeared to be the result of the thoracic injuries and none directly related to the surgical procedure. The most frequently used questionnaire to assess patient quality of life was the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) (n = 4). Four studies reporting on the EQ-5D had a weighted mean EQ-5D index of 0.80 indicating good quality of life after rib fracture fixation. CONCLUSION: Surgical fixation can be considered as a safe procedure with a considerably low complication risk and satisfactory long-term outcomes, with surgery- and implant-related complications in approximately 10% of the patients. However, the clinically most relevant complications such as infections occur infrequently, and the number of complications requiring immediate (surgical) treatment is low. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review, level III.

The evolution of trauma care in the Netherlands over 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: In 1999 an inclusive trauma system was initiated in the Netherlands and a nationwide trauma registry, including all admitted trauma patients to every hospital, was started. The Dutch trauma system is run by trauma surgeons who treat both the truncal (visceral) and extremity injuries (fractures). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this comprehensive review based on previous published studies, data over the past 20 years from the central region of the Netherlands (Utrecht) was evaluated. RESULTS: It is demonstrated that the initiation of the trauma systems and the governance by the trauma surgeons led to a region-wide mortality reduction of 50% and a mortality reduction for the most severely injured of 75% in the level 1 trauma centre. Furthermore, major improvements were found in terms of efficiency, demonstrating the quality of the current system and its constructs such as the type of surgeon. Due to the major reduction in mortality over the past few years, the emphasis of trauma care evaluation shifts towards functional outcome of severely injured patients. For the upcoming years, centralisation of severely injured patients should also aim at the balance between skills in primary resuscitation and surgical stabilization versus longitudinal surgical involvement. CONCLUSION: Further centralisation to a limited number of level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands is necessary to consolidate experience and knowledge for the trauma surgeon. The future trauma surgeon, as specialist for injured patients, should be able to provide the vast majority of trauma care in this system. For the remaining part, intramural, regional and national collaboration is essential.

Multicentre prospective cohort study of nonoperative versus operative treatment for flail chest and multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A trend has evolved towards rib fixation for flail chest although evidence is limited. Little is known about rib fixation for multiple rib fractures without flail chest. The aim of this study is to compare rib fixation with nonoperative treatment for both patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this study protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study, all patients with three or more rib fractures admitted to one of the five participating centres will be included. In two centres, rib fixation is performed and in three centres nonoperative treatment is the standard-of-care for flail chest or multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome measures are intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. Propensity score matching will be used to control for potential confounding of the relation between treatment modality and length of stay. All analyses will be performed separately for patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures without flail chest. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The regional Medical Research Ethics Committee UMC Utrecht approved a waiver of consent (reference number WAG/mb/17/024787 and METC protocol number 17-544/C). Patients will be fully informed of the purpose and procedures of the study, and signed informed consent will be obtained in agreement with the General Data Protection Regulation. Study results will be submitted for peer review publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6833.

A 5-Year Evaluation of the Implementation of Triple Diagnostics for Early Detection of Severe Necrotizing Soft Tissue Disease: A Single-Center Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The standardized approach with triple diagnostics (surgical exploration with visual inspection, microbiological and histological examination) has been proposed as the golden standard for early diagnosis of severe necrotizing soft tissue disease (SNSTD, or necrotizing fasciitis) in ambivalent cases. This study's primary aim was to evaluate the protocolized approach after implementation for diagnosing (early) SNSTD and relate this to clinical outcome. METHODS: A cohort study analyzing a 5-year period was performed. All patients undergoing surgical exploration (with triple diagnostics) for suspected SNSTD since implementation were prospectively identified. Demographics, laboratory results and clinical outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULT: Thirty-six patients underwent surgical exploration with eight (22%) negative explorations. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 25%, with an early, SNSTD-related mortality rate of 11% (n = 3). Of these, one patient (4%) underwent primary amputation, but died during surgery. No significant differences between baseline characteristics were found between patients diagnosed with SNSTD in early/indistinctive or late/obvious stage. Patient diagnosed at an early stage had a significantly shorter ICU stay (2 vs. 6 days, p = 0.031). Mortality did not differ between groups; patients who died were all ASA IV patients. CONCLUSION: Diagnosing SNSTD using the approach with triple diagnostics resulted in a low mortality rate and only a single amputation in a pre-terminal patient in the first 5 years after implementation. All deceased patients had multiple preexisting comorbidities consisting of severe systemic diseases, such as end-stage heart failure. Early detection proved to facilitate faster recovery with shorter ICU stay.

Epidural Analgesia for Severe Chest Trauma: An Analysis of Current Practice on the Efficacy and Safety.

BACKGROUND: Adequate pain control is essential in the treatment of patients with traumatic rib fractures. Although epidural analgesia is recommended in international guidelines, the use remains debatable and is not undisputed. The aim of this study was to describe the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients with ≥3 rib fractures following blunt chest trauma who received epidural analgesia between January 2015 and January 2018 were included. The main outcome parameters were the success rate of epidural analgesia and the incidence of medication-related side effects and catheter-related complications. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were included. Epidural analgesia was successful in a total of 45 patients (59%), including 22 patients without and in 23 patients with an additional analgesic intervention. In 14 patients (18%), epidural analgesia was terminated early without intervention due to insufficient sensory blockade (n=4), medication-related side effects (n=4), and catheter-related complications (n=6). In 17 patients (22%), the epidural catheter was removed after one or multiple additional interventions due to insufficient pain control. Minor epidural-related complications or side effects were encountered in 36 patients (47%). One patient had a major complication (opioid intoxication). CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia was successful in 59% of patients; however, 30% needed additional analgesic interventions. As about half of the patients had epidural-related complications, it remains debatable whether epidural analgesia is a sufficient treatment modality in patients with multiple rib fractures.

Comparison of analgesic interventions for traumatic rib fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Many studies report on outcomes of analgesic therapy for (suspected) traumatic rib fractures. However, the literature is inconclusive and diverse regarding the management of pain and its effect on pain relief and associated complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes and compares reduction of pain for the different treatment modalities and as secondary outcome mortality during hospitalization, length of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay (ICU) and complications such as respiratory, cardiovascular, and/or analgesia-related complications, for four different types of analgesic therapy: epidural analgesia, intravenous analgesia, paravertebral blocks and intercostal blocks. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched to identify comparative studies investigating epidural, intravenous, paravertebral and intercostal interventions for traumatic rib fractures, without restriction for study type. The search strategy included keywords and MeSH or Emtree terms relating blunt chest trauma (including rib fractures), analgesic interventions, pain management and complications. RESULTS: A total of 19 papers met our inclusion criteria and were finally included in this systematic review. Significant differences were found in favor of epidural analgesia for the reduction of pain. No significant differences were observed between epidural analgesia, intravenous analgesia, paravertebral blocks and intercostal blocks, for the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study show that epidural analgesia provides better pain relief than the other modalities. No differences were observed for secondary endpoints like length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation or pulmonary complications. However, the quality of the available evidence is low, and therefore, preclude strong recommendations.

Current treatment and outcomes of traumatic sternal fractures-a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Traumatic sternal fractures are rare injuries. The most common mechanism of injury is direct blunt trauma to the anterior chest wall. Most (> 95%) sternal fractures are treated conservatively. Surgical fixation is indicated in case of fracture instability, displacement or non-union. However, limited research has been performed on treatment outcomes. This study aimed to provide an overview of the current treatment practices and outcomes of traumatic sternal fractures and dislocations. METHODS: A systematic review of literature published from 1990 to June 2017 was conducted. Original studies on traumatic sternal fractures, reporting sternal healing or sternal stability were included. Studies on non-traumatic sternal fractures or not reporting sternal healing outcomes, as well as case reports (n = 1), were excluded. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in this review, which reported treatment outcomes for 191 patients. Most included studies were case series of poor quality. All patients showed sternal healing and 98% reported pain relief. Treatment complications occurred in 2% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of traumatic sternal fractures and dislocations is an underexposed topic. Although all patients in this review displayed sternal healing, results should be interpreted with caution since most included studies were of poor quality.

Long-term follow-up after rib fixation for flail chest and multiple rib fractures.

PURPOSE: Rib fixation for flail chest has been shown to improve in-hospital outcome, but little is known about treatment for multiple rib fractures and long-term outcome is scarce. The aim of this study was to describe the safety, long-term quality of life, and implant-related irritation after rib fixation for flail chest and multiple rib fractures. METHODS: All adult patients with blunt thoracic trauma who underwent rib fixation for flail chest or multiple rib fractures between January 2010 and December 2016 in our level 1 trauma facility were retrospectively included. In-hospital characteristics and implant removal were obtained via medical records and long-term quality of life was assessed over the telephone. RESULTS: Of the 864 patients admitted with ≥ 3 rib fractures, 166 (19%) underwent rib fixation; 66 flail chest patients and 99 multiple rib fracture patients with an ISS of 24 (IQR 18-34) and 21 (IQR 16-29), respectively. Overall, the most common complication was pneumonia (n = 58, 35%). Six (9%) patients with a flail chest and three (3%) with multiple rib fractures died, only one because of injuries related to the thorax. On average at 3.9 years, follow-up was obtained from 103 patients (62%); 40 with flail chest and 63 with multiple rib fractures reported an EQ-5D index of 0.85 (IQR 0.62-1) and 0.79 (0.62-0.91), respectively. Forty-eight (48%) patients had implant-related irritation and nine (9%) had implant removal. CONCLUSIONS: We show that rib fixation is a safe procedure and that patients reported a relative good quality of life. Patients should be counseled that after rib fixation approximately half of the patients will experience implant-related irritation and about one in ten patients requires implant material removal.

Fixation of flail chest or multiple rib fractures: current evidence and how to proceed. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to present current evidence on rib fixation and to compare effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched on June 16th 2017 for both RCTs and observational studies comparing rib fixation versus nonoperative treatment. The MINORS criteria were used to assess study quality. Where possible, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was mortality. Secondary outcome measures were hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), pneumonia, and tracheostomy. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included resulting in 5874 patients with flail chest or multiple rib fractures: 1255 received rib fixation and 4619 nonoperative treatment. Rib fixation for flail chest reduced mortality compared to nonoperative treatment with a risk ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.27, 0.61, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). Furthermore, rib fixation resulted in a shorter ILOS, DMV, lower pneumonia rate, and need for tracheostomy. Results from recent studies showed lower mortality and shorter DMV after rib fixation, but there were no significant differences for the other outcome measures. There was insufficient data to perform meta-analyses on rib fixation for multiple rib fractures. Pooled results from RCTs and observational studies were similar for all outcome measures, although results from RCTs showed a larger treatment effect for HLOS, ILOS, and DMV compared to observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Rib fixation for flail chest improves short-term outcome, although the indication and patient subgroup who would benefit most remain unclear. There is insufficient data regarding treatment for multiple rib fractures. Observational studies show similar results compared with RCTs.

Severely injured patients benefit from in-house attending trauma surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: There is continuous drive to optimize healthcare for the most severely injured patients. Although still under debate, a possible measure is to provide 24/7 in-house (IH) coverage by trauma surgeons. The aim of this study was to compare process-related outcomes for severely injured patients before and after transition of attendance policy from an out-of-hospital (OH) on-call attending trauma surgeon to an in-house attending trauma surgeon. METHODS: Retrospective before-and-after study using prospectively gathered data in a Level 1 Trauma Center in the Netherlands. All trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) >24 presenting to the emergency department for trauma before (2011-2012) and after (2014-2016) introduction of IH attendings were included. Primary outcome measures were the process-related outcomes Emergency Department length of stay (ED-LOS) and time to first intervention. RESULTS: After implementation of IH trauma surgeons, ED-LOS decreased (p = 0.009). Time from the ED to the intensive care unit (ICU) for patients directly transferred to the ICU was significantly shorter with more than doubling of the percentage of patients that reached the ICU within an hour. The percentage of patients undergoing emergency surgery within 30 min nearly doubled as well, with a larger amount of patients undergoing CT imaging before emergency surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a 24/7 in-house attending trauma surgeon led to improved process-related outcomes for the most severely injured patients. There is clear benefit of continuous presence of physicians with sufficient experience in trauma care in hospitals treating large numbers of severely injured patients.

Rib fixation versus non-operative treatment for flail chest and multiple rib fractures after blunt thoracic trauma: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Over the years, a trend has evolved towards operative treatment of flail chest although evidence is limited. Furthermore, little is known about operative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures without a flail chest. The aim of this study was to compare rib fixation based on a clinical treatment algorithm with nonoperative treatment for both patients with a flail chest or multiple rib fractures. METHODS: All patients with ≥ 3 rib fractures admitted to one of the two contributing hospitals between January 2014 and January 2017 were retrospectively included in this multicenter cohort study. One hospital treated all patients nonoperatively and the other hospital treated patients with rib fixation according to a clinical treatment algorithm. Primary outcome measures were intensive care length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. To control for potential confounding, propensity score matching was applied. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were treated according to protocol and available for analysis. The mean age was 56 (SD 17) years old and 257 (77%) patients were male. The overall mean Injury Severity Score was 23 (SD 11) and the average number of rib fractures was 8 (SD 4). There were 92 patients with a flail chest, 37 (40%) had rib fixation and 55 (60%) had non-operative treatment. There were 240 patients with multiple rib fractures, 28 (12%) had rib fixation and 212 (88%) had non-operative treatment. For both patient groups, after propensity score matching, rib fixation was not associated with intensive care unit length of stay (for flail chest patients) nor with hospital length of stay (for multiple rib fracture patients), nor with the secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: No advantage could be demonstrated for operative fixation of rib fractures. Future studies are needed before rib fixation is embedded or abandoned in clinical practice.

Dedicated mass-casualty incident hospitals: An overview.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitals worldwide are preparing for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). The Major Incident Hospital in the Netherlands was constructed 25 years ago as a dedicated hospital for situations wherein a sudden increase in medical surge capacity is mandated to handle an MCI. Over the years, more initiatives of dedicated MCIs have arisen. Herein, we compared the MCI facilities from three countries considering the reasons for construction and the functionality. METHODS: Three dedicated mass casualty hospitals and one hospital with a largely fortified structure were compared. The centres were located in the Netherlands, Italy, and Israel. Between August 2015 and January 2016, structured interviews were conducted with representatives of the hospitals' medical operations. The interviews focussed on general information regarding the need for MCI preparedness and scenarios that require preparation, reasons for construction, hospital missions, and the experiences gained including training. RESULTS: All dedicated MCI hospitals had a common policy wherein they sought to create normal work circumstances for the medical staff by using similar equipment and resources as in normal hospitals. The MCI hospitals' designs differed substantially, as determined by the threats faced by the country. In Europe, these hospitals are designed as a solution to surge capacity and function as buffer hospitals offering readily available, short term, additional medical capacity to the local health care system. Israel faces constant threat from long-term conflicts; during the 2006 war, several hospitals suffered direct missile impacts. Therefore, Israeli MCI hospitals are designed to be fortified structures offering shelter against both conventional and non-conventional warfare and intended as a long-term solution during siege situations. CONCLUSION: Several dedicated MCI hospitals are presently being constructed. During construction, the local circumstances should be taken into account to determine the functionality for both short-term solutions for surge capacity and as fortified structures to withstand under-siege situations.

Hospital evacuation: Exercise versus reality.

INTRODUCTION: The Dutch Major Incident Hospital (MIH) is a standby, highly prepared, 200-bed hospital strictly reserved to provide immediate, large-scale, and emergency care for victims of disasters and major incidents. It has long-standing experience training for various major incident scenarios, including functioning as a back-up facility for the Netherlands. In 1995, the MIH had experience with overtaking an evacuated hospital when that hospital was threatened by flooding. In November 2014, an exercise was performed to transfer an evacuating hospital to the MIH. The scenario again became reality when a neighbouring hospital had to evacuate in September 2015. This article evaluates the events and compares the exercise to the real events in order to further optimise future training. METHODS: All three events were analysed using the Protocol for Reports from Major Accidents and Disasters, a standardised protocol to evaluate medical responses to a major incident. RESULTS: During the 2014 exercise, 72 patients were received, compared with 143 and 70, respectively, in the real events in 1995 and 2015. Personnel from the evacuating hospitals accompanied the patients and continued working in the MIH. The patient surge differed on all three occasions. The information technology (IT) systems proved to be more prone to fail during the real event, and legal implications to have staff from another hospital work in the MIH had to be put in protocol during the deployment. The acute phase was comparable in all three events, and performance was good. However, the exercise did not last long enough to analyse the implications on multiday care, as experienced during a multiday deployment. CONCLUSION: Large-scale major incident exercises are a great benchmark for the medical response in the acute phase of relief. The MIH was shown to be highly prepared to admit an entire evacuating hospital or large groups of patients in such a scenario. Experiences from the past, combined with regular training that closely resembles reality, guarantee the level of preparedness. Key differences between a true deployment and an exercise are the inability to train multiple days, and in our experience, a successful operation of IT systems in test environments does not guarantee their successful use during live events.