An initiative to assess and improve the resources and patient care processes used among Chest Wall Injury Society collaborative centers study (CWIS-CC2).

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers that epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers. The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. METHODS: A survey was performed including all CWIS Collaborative Centers evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each chest wall injury center care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US-based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16 of 20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5 of 20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80% (8 of 10) with advanced practice providers and 70% (7 of 10) with care coordinators. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support, and 35% (7 of 20) have surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF)-related grants. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have marketing support, and 30% (8 of 20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4 (1-9) surgeons perform SSRFs. In the majority of trauma centers, the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. CONCLUSION: Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal chest wall injury center. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Recent Advances in Rib Plating.

Rib fractures are a common injury in blunt trauma and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have led to better patient outcomes for those with highly unstable complex rib fractures, as well as those with less severe injuries. This result has been due in part to the expansion of indications for repair, as well as the development of new hardware systems to address a variety of fracture patterns and injuries. This joint advancement of operator techniques, outcomes research, and industry development has brought SSRF to the forefront of rib fracture management and challenged non-operative paradigms. The future of repair is now shifting focus, as surgeons develop minimally invasive approaches and challenge manufacturers to develop new systems, instruments, and materials to address increasingly complex fracture patterns. These expansions promise to make SSRF an increasingly effective form of management for traumatic rib fractures.

Creating a Chest Wall Injury and Reconstructive program: A single center experience with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: New Chest Wall Injury and Reconstructive Centers (CWIRC) are emerging; this study aims to investigate the potential benefits of implementing a CWIRC at a single institution. We hypothesized that patients treated at CWIRC will have improved outcomes. METHODS: We instituted a CWIRC in 2019 at our American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level One Trauma Center. We retrospectively compared trauma patients with rib fractures who presented to our center 18 months before (PRE-C) and 18 months after CWIRC implementation (POST-C). Outcomes measured included mortality, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU-LOS), readmission rates, and unplanned ICU admission. RESULTS: There were 192 PRE-C patients, compared to 388 POST-C. The mortality in PRE-C was not significantly different compared to the POST-C group (11.46% vs 8.8%, p=0.308). There were also no differences in LOS, ICU-LOS, readmission, and unplanned ICU admission. ICU utilization was dramatically different: PRE-C 17.8% were admitted to ICU compared to 35.6% POST-C (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The number of patients admitted with rib fractures to our center nearly doubled after CWIRC establishment. Early diagnosis and triage led to significantly more admissions to higher levels of care. There are trends toward improved outcomes using practice management protocols, albeit with higher ICU utilization. Establishment of a CWIRC should be considered for level 1 ACS trauma centers and as utilization of established CWIRC protocols are increased, patients will have improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV STUDY TYPE: Retrospective chart review.

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 rib fixation in traumatic rib fractures: is it warranted?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traumatic chest wall injuries and rib fractures remain a prevalent injury. Despite many advances, these injuries result in high morbidity and mortality. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is increasing in utilization with expanding indications. Recent studies have demonstrated that many patients may benefit from surgical intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 20 years the indications and timing of SSRF has evolved. Once reserved mainly for the most extreme of injuries, expanding indications demonstrate that even minimally injured patients may benefit from intervention regarding pain control, respiratory complications, and overall mortality. SUMMARY: SSRF has become more prevalent with improving outcomes for patients. Understanding the indications will help expand utilization and improve patient outcomes.

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.

The Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Reporting Studies of Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Publications investigating the efficacy of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have increased exponentially. However, there is currently no standardized reporting structure for these studies, rendering both comparisons and extrapolation problematic. METHODS: A subject matter expert group was formed by the Chest Wall Injury Society. This group conducted a review of the SSRF investigational literature and identified variable reporting within several general categories of relevant parameters. A compliment of guidelines was then generated. RESULTS: The reporting guidelines consist of 26 recommendations in the categories of: (1) study type, (2) patient and injury characteristics, (3) patient treatments, (4) outcomes, and (5) statistical considerations. CONCLUSION: Our review identified inconsistencies in reporting within the investigational SSRF literature. In response to these inconsistencies, we propose a set of recommendations to standardize reporting of original investigations into the efficacy of SSRF.

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.

Outcomes after pneumonectomy versus limited lung resection in adults with traumatic lung injury.

Pneumonectomy after traumatic lung injury (TLI) is associated with shock, increased pulmonary vascular resistance, and eventual right ventricular failure. Historically, trauma pneumonectomy (TP) mortality rates ranged between 53 and 100%. It is unclear if contemporary mortality rates have improved. Therefore, we evaluated outcomes associated with TP and limited lung resections (LLR) (i.e., lobectomy and segmentectomy) and aimed to identify predictors of mortality, hypothesizing that TP is associated with greater mortality versus LLR. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) and performed a multivariable logistic regression to determine the independent predictors of mortality in TLI patients undergoing TP versus LLR. TLI occurred in 287,276 patients. Of these, 889 required lung resection with 758 (85.3%) undergoing LLR and 131 (14.7%) undergoing TP. Patients undergoing TP had a higher median injury severity score (26.0 vs. 24.5, p = 0.03) but no difference in initial median systolic blood pressure (109 vs. 107 mmHg, p = 0.92) compared to LLR. Mortality was significantly higher for TP compared to LLR (64.9% vs 27.2%, p < 0.001). The strongest independent predictor for mortality was undergoing TP versus LLR (OR 4.89, CI 3.18-7.54, p < 0.001). TP continues to be associated with a higher mortality compared to LLR. Furthermore, TP is independently associated with a fivefold increased risk of mortality compared to LLR. Future investigations should focus on identifying parameters or treatment modalities that improve survivability after TP. We recommend that surgeons reserve TP as a last-resort management given the continued high morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure.

Smoking is associated with an improved short-term outcome in patients with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Smokers with cardiovascular disease have been reported to have decreased mortality compared to non-smokers. Rib fractures are associated with significant underlying injuries such as lung contusions, lacerations, and/or pneumothoraces. We hypothesized that blunt trauma patients with rib fractures who are smokers have decreased ventilator days and risk of in-hospital mortality compared to non-smokers. STUDY DESIGN: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients presenting with a blunt rib fracture. Patients that died within 24 h of admission were excluded. A multivariable logistic regression model was performed. RESULTS: From 282,986 patients with rib fractures, 57,619 (20.4%) were smokers. Compared to non-smokers with rib fractures, smokers had a higher median injury severity score (17 vs. 16, p < 0.001). Smokers had a higher rate of pneumonia (7.5% vs. 6.6%, p < 0.001), however, less ventilator days (5 vs. 6, p = 0.04), and lower in-hospital mortality rate (2.3% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001), compared to non-smokers. After controlling for covariates, smokers with rib fractures were associated with a decreased risk for in-hospital mortality compared to non-smokers with rib fractures (OR 0.64, 0.56-0.73, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite having more severe injuries and increased rates of pneumonia, smokers with rib fractures were associated with nearly a 40% decreased risk of in-hospital mortality and one less ventilator day compared to non-smokers. The long-term detrimental effects of smoking have been widely established. However, the biologic and pathophysiologic adaptations that smokers have may confer a survival benefit when recovering in the hospital from chest wall trauma. This study was limited by the database missing the number of pack-years smoked. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm this association and elucidate the physiologic mechanisms that may explain these findings.

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.

Characteristics of hardware failure in patients undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A Chest Wall Injury Society multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is increasingly used for severe rib fractures/flail chest. There are no reports discussing mechanisms of failure of implanted hardware, its clinical presentation, or consequences. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence, presenting signs, and clinical sequela of hardware failure after SSRF. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study was performed by a group of surgeons with a large SSRF case volume. All cases with known hardware failure from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2017, were included. The surgeon's experience at the time of hardware implantation, specific implant used, number of failures the surgeon had experienced with the same system, and time from implantation to hardware failure were recorded. Additionally, patient demographics, including age, comorbid conditions, and number and location of rib fractures were recorded. Symptomatology associated with hardware failure and need for explant and/or reimplantation of hardware was also recorded. Nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare cohorts. RESULTS: Of 1,224 patients who underwent SSRF, 38 patients with 233 rib fractures and 279 fracture segments experienced hardware failure and were enrolled in the study. Twelve patients presented more than 3 months following injury. Median age was 54 years old and 34% were active smokers. One hundred forty-four plates were implanted with a median of four plates per patient. Median number of SSRF cases by each surgeon was 100 (range, 1-280). Fractures and hardware failure were most frequent in the anterolateral/lateral region. Hardware failure was mostly due to screw migration and plate fracture. Hardware failure was asymptomatic in 40% and presented as pain in 42% of cases. Fifty-five percent of the cases required explantation of hardware, and only 10% required SSRF again. There was no difference between the acute and chronic fracture cohorts. CONCLUSION: Hardware failure after SSRF is rare and often asymptomatic. When present, it rarely requires redo SSRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures: A Single Institution Experience.

BACKGROUND: Use of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has increased. Despite compelling small studies, many centers still struggle with determining criteria for intervention. We investigated the benefit of SSRF in our patients compared with nonoperative (NonOp) National Trauma Databank (NTDB) controls, specifically in the older population. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective comparison of trauma patients with ≥3 and >5 rib fractures, who underwent SSRF at a tertiary care level I trauma center, with nonoperatively managed NTDB controls from equivalent level I centers between 2007 and 2014. The main outcomes measures included mortality, pneumonia, length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, ventilator use, and tracheostomy rates. RESULTS: Overall, SSRF patients were older, had a higher percentage of respiratory disease, and higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS). Despite more respiratory disease in SSRF patients vs NonOp (p < 0.0001), there was no difference in ventilator usage. Results of SSRF included decreases in mortality (12%, p = 0.008) and pneumonia (13%, p < 0.001) compared with NonOp on propensity score matching. On subgroup analysis of patients 65 years of age or older, ISS was higher in the SSRF group. Mortality was significantly lower for SSRF vs NonOp, even with higher frequency of respiratory disease within the group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent SSRF at our institution had improved outcomes despite a higher percentage of respiratory disease, compared with patients who were managed nonoperatively nationwide. Mortality rates improved for patients aged 65 and older, suggesting that this patient population may benefit more from SSRF.

A multicenter evaluation of the optimal timing of surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains debated. We hypothesized that (1) demographic, radiologic, and clinical variables are associated with time to surgery and (2) shorter time to SSRF improves acute outcomes. METHODS: Prospectively collected SSRF databases from four trauma centers were merged and analyzed (2006-2016). The independent variable was days from hospital admission to SSRF (early [<1 day], mid [1-2 days], and late [3-10 days]). Outcomes included length of operation, number of ribs repaired, prolonged (>24 hours) mechanical ventilation, pneumonia, tracheostomy, length of stay, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to control for significant differences in covariates between groups. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-one patients were analyzed. The median time to SSRF was 1 day (range, 0-10); 207 (37.6%) patients were in the early group, 168 (30.5%) in the midgroup, and 186 (31.9%) in the late group. There was a significant shift toward earlier SSRF over the study period. Time to SSRF was significantly associated with study center (p < 0.01), year of surgery (p < 0.01), age (p = 0.02), mechanism of injury (p = 0.04), and body mass index (p = 0.02). Injury severity was not associated with time to surgery. Despite repairing the same median number of ribs (4; range, 1-13), median length of surgery was 68 minutes longer for the late as compared to the early group (p < 0.01). After controlling for the aforementioned significant covariates, each additional hospital day before SSRF was independently associated with a 31% increased likelihood of pneumonia (p < 0.01), a 27% increased likelihood of prolonged mechanical ventilation (p < 0.01), and a 26% increased likelihood of tracheostomy (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures within 1 day of admission is associated with certain demographic and physiologic variables. After controlling for confounding factors, early SSRF was accomplished using less operative time, and was associated with favorable outcomes. When indicated and feasible, SSRF should occur as early as possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapy, level III.

Quantifying and exploring the recent national increase in surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has become pivotal in the management of severe chest injuries. Recent literature supports improved outcomes and mortality in severe fracture and flail chest patients who undergo SSRF compared with nonoperative management (NOM). A 2014 National Trauma Data Bank review provided a point prevalence of 0.7% SSRF in flail patients. We hypothesize that this prevalence is increasing and that temporal, regional, and American College of Surgeons (ACS) trauma designation vary in SSRF utilization. METHODS: Retrospective National Trauma Data Bank data were extracted for years 2007 to 2014 for patients with rib fractures. Cases were divided into SSRF versus NOM. SSRF frequencies were analyzed across year, region, and ACS level. Patient demographics, injury severity score, number of fractured ribs, and hospital characteristics were identified for multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2014, 687,137 rib fracture patients were identified; 29,981 (4.36%) underwent SSRF. SSRF increased by 76% nationally during the review period (odds ratio [OR], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-1.67; p < 0.001). Compared with the north, SSRF was used more in the west (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.57-1.71), south (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.43-1.54), then midwest (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.34-1.46; p < 0.001). Although likelihood of SSRF is higher at ACS Level I (LI) centers compared with Level II (LII) centers (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.65-0.69) or Level III (LIII) (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22-0.26); p < 0.001), frequency of SSRF increased dramatically at lower-level centers from 2007 to 2014 (LI, 41.4%; LII, 53.6%; LIII, 60.0%).Overall SSRF mortality was 1.58% (NOM, 5.3%; p < 0.001), decreasing significantly between 2007 and 2014 (p < 0.0001). ACS LII had higher mortality than LI (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.39-2.39; p < 0.0001), controlled by Injury Severity Score. CONCLUSION: Utilization of SSRF has risen considerably nationwide. Prevalence varies by region and ACS level. Although greatest growth is occurring at LII hospitals, mortality is also the highest at these centers. Further research is needed to determine the need for regionalization of care and center of excellence designation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.