Surgical stabilization of rib fractures in the geriatric trauma population is associated with equivalent outcomes to a younger cohort: A propensity matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) improves outcomes in chest wall trauma. Geriatric patients are particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes; yet, this population is often excluded from SSRF studies. Further delineating patient outcomes by age is necessary to optimize care for the aging trauma population. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted examining outcomes among patients aged 40+ for whom an SSRF consult was placed between 2017 and 2022 at a level 1 trauma center. Patients were categorized into geriatric (65+) and adult (40-64), as well as 80 years and older (80+) and 79 and younger (40-79). Patient outcomes were assessed comparing non-operative and operative management of chest wall trauma. Propensity matched analysis was performed to evaluate mortality differences between adult and geriatric patients who did and did not undergo SSRF. RESULTS: A total of 543 patients had an SSRF consult. Of these, 227 were 65+, and 73 were 80+. A total of 129 patients underwent SSRF (24 %). The percentage of patients undergoing SSRF did not vary between 40 and 64 and 65+ (23.7 % and 23.6 %, respectively, p = 0.97) or 40-79 and 80+ (24.0 vs 21.9, p = 0.69). Patients undergoing SSRF had higher chest injury burden and were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and ICU level care on admission. Overall, in-hospital mortality rate was 4.6 %. Among patients who underwent SSRF, mortality rate did not significantly differ between 65+ and 40-64 (7.8% vs 2.7 %, p = 0.18) or 80+ and 40-79 (6.3% vs 4.6 %, p = 0.77). This remained true in propensity matched analysis. CONCLUSION: Geriatric and octogenarian patients with rib fractures underwent SSRF at similar rates and achieved equivalent outcomes to their younger counterparts. SSRF did not differentially affect mortality outcomes based on age group in propensity matched analysis. SSRF is safe for geriatric patients including octogenarians.

Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a substantial increase in remotely provided maternity care services, including breastfeeding support. It is, therefore, important to understand whether breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. To determine if breastfeeding support provided remotely is an effective method of support. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Twenty-nine studies were included in the review and 26 contributed data to the meta-analysis. Remotely provided breastfeeding support significantly reduced the risk of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months by 25% (risk ratio [RR]: 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63, 0.90). There was no significant difference in the number of women stopping any breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.64), 3 months (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.71, 1.11), or 6 months (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.81, 1.03) or the number of women stopping exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70, 1.07) or 6 months (RR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.0). There was substantial heterogeneity of interventions in terms of mode of delivery, intensity, and providers. This demonstrates that remote interventions can be effective for improving exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months but the certainty of the evidence is low. Improvements in exclusive breastfeeding at 4-8 weeks and 6 months were only found when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. They are also less likely to be effective for improving any breastfeeding. Remote provision of breastfeeding support and education could be provided when it is not possible to provide face-to-face care.