Prospective randomized trial of metal versus resorbable plates in surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures has gained popularity as both metal and resorbable plates have been approved for fracture repair. Is there a difference between metal and resorbable plate rib fixation regarding rib fracture alignment, control of pain, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores (Rand SF-36 survey)? METHODS: Eligible patients (pts) included 18 years or older with one or more of the following: flail chest, one or more bicortical displaced fractures (3-10), nondisplaced fractures with failure of medical management. Patients were randomized to either metal or resorbable plate fixation. Primary outcome was fracture alignment. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, opioid use, and QOL scores. RESULTS: Thirty pts were randomized (15 metal/15 resorbable). Total ribs plated 167 (88 metal/79 resorbable). Patients with rib displacement at day of discharge (DOD) metal 0/14 (one pt died, not from plating) versus resorbable 9/15 or 60% ( p = 0.001). Ribs displaced at DOD metal 0/88 versus resorbable 22/79 or 28% ( p < 0.001), 48% in posterior location. Patients with increased rib displacement 3 months to 6 months: metal, 0/11 versus resorbable, 3/9 or 33% ( p = 0.043). Ribs with increased displacement 3 months to 6 months metal 0 of 67 versus resorbable 6 of 49 or 12.2% ( p < 0.004). Pain scores and narcotic use at postoperative Days 1, 2, 3, DOD, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months showed no statistically significant difference between groups. QOL scores were also similar at 3 months and 6 months. Trauma recidivism in outpatient period resulted in fracture of resorbable plates in two pts requiring a second surgery. CONCLUSION: Metal plates provided better initial alignment with no displacement over time. Clinical outcomes were similar regarding pain, narcotic use, and QOL scores. Routine use of resorbable plates for posterior rib fractures is not warranted. Lateral repairs were technically most feasible for using resorbable plates but still resulted in significant displacement. Resorbable plates may not maintain rib alignment when exposed to subsequent injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Comprehensive Initiative to Decrease Trauma Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Our trauma center was a high outlier for pulmonary embolism on a 2017 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) report. The odds ratio for developing a pulmonary embolus was 1.76 and was in the 10th decile (worst results). Of the patients who received chemoprophylaxis, only 69% of patients received the "gold standard" low-molecular-weight heparin. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate a multicomponent performance improvement project to prevent pulmonary embolus incidence. METHODS: This descriptive study was a before-and-after time-series analysis of adult trauma patients. Ongoing data validation, concurrent monitoring, and analysis on incidence of venous thrombolytic events identified barriers to evidence-based chemoprophylaxis administration. RESULTS: There were a total of 4,711 trauma patients in the analysis. Compared with preintervention (fall 2017), the fall 2019 TQIP report indicated the pulmonary embolus odds ratio dropped to 0.56, lowering the benchmark decile from 10 (worst) to 1 (best). The proportion of patients receiving no chemoprophylaxis decreased to 23% and was lower than all hospitals (32%). The rate of low-molecular-weight heparin use increased to 80% for patients receiving chemoprophylaxis, and unfractionated heparin use plummeted to 14%. The proportion of patients with no chemoprophylaxis in the severe traumatic brain injury cohort fell to 21%. CONCLUSIONS: The high pulmonary embolus rate was driven by inaccurate data, infrequent monitoring, suboptimal ordering, and administration of chemoprophylaxis. A sustained decrease in the pulmonary embolus incidence was achieved through collaboration, updated guidelines, expanded education, concurrent validation, monitoring, and frequent reporting.