Together is better - RibScore and SCARF in the prediction of pulmonary complications and association with SSRF.

BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment of patients with rib fractures requires identification of those patients at risk of pulmonary complications. It is also important to determine which patients would benefit from Surgical Stabilisation of Rib Fractures (SSRF). This study aims to validate two scoring systems (RibScore and SCARF score) in predicting complications and association with SSRF in an Australian trauma population. Clinical observation suggests that complications and criteria for SSRF is associated with anatomical and physiological factors. Therefore it is hypothesized that utilisation of an anatomical (RibScore) and physiological (SCARF) in conjunction will have improved predictive ability. METHOD: Retrospective cohort study of rib fracture patients admitted to an Australian Level I trauma centre from Jan 2017 to Jan 2021. RibScore and SCARF score were calculated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine risk factors associated with complications and SSRF, as well the scoring systems' ability via ROC AUC. RESULTS: 1157 patients were included. Higher median RibScore (1vs0; p < 0.001) and SCARF score (3vs1, p < 0.001) was associated with development of complications. Similarly for SSRF, RibScore (3vs0; p < 0.001), SCARF score (3vs1; p < 0.001) were higher. On multivariate analysis, increasing RibScore and SCARF score were associated with an increased risk of respiratory failure, pneumonia, death, and SSRF. The sensitivity for a patient with a high risk score in either RibScore or SCARF increased to 96.3 % in identifying pulmonary complications (from 66.7 % in RibScore and 88 % in SCARF, when used individually) and 91.9 % in identifying association with SSRF (from 86.5 % in RibScore and 70.3 % in SCARF). CONCLUSION: RibScore and SCARF score demonstrate predictive ability for complications and SSRF in an Australian trauma rib fracture population. Combining a radiological score with a clinical scoring system demonstrates improved sensitivity over each score individually for identifying patients at risk of complications from rib fractures, those who may require SSRF, and those who are low risk. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective Cohort Study LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Validation of a novel range of motion assessment tool for the cervical spine: the HALO© digital goniometer.

Background: Cervical spine range of motion (ROM) assessment has long been carried out via use of the universal goniometer (UG) as an objective tool in the evaluation of patient rehabilitation pre- and post-operatively. The advent of novel ROM assessment technology, such as HALO digital goniometer (DG), presents an avenue for research and potential application within clinical and surgical settings. The objective of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the HALO DG in the assessment of the active ROM of the cervical spine. Methods: One hundred healthy subjects were recruited for the study and were split into two groups to be assessed by either physiotherapists or medical students. The methodology for cervical spine ROM assessment was carried out per the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines. The reliability analysis was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25, calculating the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to determine both the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the device. Results: Inter-rater reliability within the physiotherapist cohort with the DG (ICCr =0.477, 0.718, 0.551) was higher compared to the UG (ICCr =0.380, 0.510, 0.255) for active cervical flexion, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. The UG (ICCr =0.819) showed better reliability versus the DG (ICCr =0.780) when assessing cervical extension. Similarly, in the medical student cohort, the DG outperformed the UG in all movement except cervical lateral flexion. When assessing for intra-rater reliability, the DG (ICCm =0.507, 0.773, 0.728, 0.691) performed better than the UG (ICCm =0.487, 0.529, 0.532, 0.585) in cervical flexion, extension, lateral flexion, and rotation, respectively. Conclusions: The present validation study identified the DG as a reliable substitute for the UG.