Inpatient Outcomes of Intercostal Nerve Cryoablation With Surgical Rib Fixation.

INTRODUCTION: Rib fractures are associated with significant pain and morbidity. Intercostal nerve cryoablation (INCA) offers targeted, prolonged pain relief for these patients. Over the last decade, more patients have undergone surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) after injury. However, data on INCA use in SSRF patients are limited. This study aimed to identify the relationship of INCA in blunt trauma patients (BTPs) undergoing SSRF, hypothesizing INCA coupled with SSRF would decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program database (2017-2021) was queried for BTPs ≥18 y old who underwent SSRF. Patients who received INCA ((+)INCA) were compared to patients who did not ((-)INCA). The primary outcome was LOS. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS and in-hospital complications. A subgroup analysis of only flail chest patients was performed. RESULTS: From 15,784 BTPs, 750 (4.8%) received INCA. Hospital LOS was similar between groups (12 versus 12 d, P = 0.10); however, the (+)INCA patients had decreased ICU LOS (6 versus 7 d, P < 0.001). The (+)INCA cohort also had decreased hospital complications (20.4% versus 24.4%, P = 0.01), including pulmonary embolism (0.7% versus 1.8%, P = 0.02) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (2.1% versus 3.8%, P = 0.02). On subgroup analysis of flail chest patients, decreased ICU LOS in the (+)INCA patients remained a significant outcome (7 versus 8 d, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 5% of SSRF patients received INCA. While overall LOS was similar, the (+)INCA cohort had decreased ICU LOS and in-hospital complications. Future studies are needed to corroborate these findings and evaluate any long-term complications associated with INCA before widespread adoption.

Sternal fixation for traumatic sternal fractures demonstrates better long-term quality of life outcomes than nonoperative management: A survey analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Sternal fractures are rare, causing significant pain, respiratory compromise, and decreased upper extremity range of motion. Sternal fixation (SF) is a viable treatment option; however, there remains a paucity of literature demonstrating long-term benefits. This study examined long-term outcomes of SF, hypothesizing they have better long-term quality of life (QoL) than patients managed nonoperatively (NOM). METHODS: This was a survey study at our level 1 academic hospital. All patients diagnosed with a sternal fracture were included from January 2016 to July 2021. Patients were grouped whether they received SF or NOM. Basic demographics were obtained. Three survey phone call attempts were conducted. The time from injury to survey was recorded. Outcomes included responses to the QoL survey, which included mobility, self-care, usual activities, chest pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. The survey scale is 1-5 (1 = worst condition possible; 5 = best possible condition). Patients were asked to rate their current health on a scale of 0-100 (100 being the best possible health imaginable). Chi square and t-tests were used. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty four patients were surveyed. Sixty nine underwent SF and 315 were NOM. Thirty-eight (55.1%) SF patients and 126 (40%) NOM patients participated in the survey. Basic demographics were similar. Average days from sternal fracture to survey was 1198 (±492) for the SF group and 1454 (±567) for the NOM group. The SF cohort demonstrated statistically significant better QoL than the NOM cohort for all categories except anxiety/depression. CONCLUSION: SF provides better long-term QoL and better overall health scores compared to NOM.

Severity of Illness Impacts Outcomes More than Admitting Service for Isolated Hip Fracture Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Isolated hip fractures (IHF) are common injuries in the elderly. Controversy exists about which hospital service is best suited to manage these patients. We hypothesize that baseline patient severity of illness (SOI) score drives patient outcomes, not the hospital service managing these patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of all IHF patients from 2014 to 2018 at our Level 1 trauma center. Basic demographics were obtained. Patients were divided into service line they were admitted; surgical vs non-surgical. Primary outcomes included hospital length of stay (HLOS), time to OR, time to VTE prophylaxis, complication rate (defined by the Trauma Quality Improvement Program), 30-day mortality, and readmissions. SOI score (which is DRG-based) was controlled to see if any differences in primary outcomes occurred between cohorts. Chi-square was used for categorical variables and regression analysis for continuous variables. Significance was p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 366 total patients were analyzed with the same ISS. A total of 102 were admitted to a surgical service and 264 to a non-surgical service. Average overall age was 80 year, 66.9% were female, and 86% were Caucasian. There was no statistical difference between outcomes when comparing admitting services. Controlling for SOI score, there was no difference between admitting service for outcomes as well. SOI score was a significant predictor for increased HLOS and complication occurrence (p < 0.001) via regression analysis, with a 6.06-fold increase in complication rate from mild to moderate SOI score (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is no difference in outcomes based on admitting service and process measures. However, the SOI score is perhaps a better predictor of outcomes for isolated hip fracture patients.

Randomized Clinical Trial of 14-French (14F) Pigtail Catheters versus 28-32F Chest Tubes in the Management of Patients with Traumatic Hemothorax and Hemopneumothorax.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional management of traumatic hemothorax/hemopneumothorax (HTX/HPTX) has been insertion of large-bore 32-40 French (Fr) chest tubes (CTs). Retrospective studies have shown 14Fr percutaneous pigtail catheters (PCs) are equally effective as CTs. Our aim was to compare effectiveness between PCs and CTs by performing the first randomized controlled trial (RCT). We hypothesize PCs work equally as well as CTs in management of traumatic HTX/HPTX. METHODS: Prospective RCT comparing 14Fr PCs to 28-32Fr CTs for management of traumatic HTX/HPTX from 07/2015 to 01/2018. We excluded patients requiring emergency tube placement or who refused. Primary outcome was failure rate defined as retained HTX or recurrent PTX requiring additional intervention. Secondary outcomes included initial output (IO), tube days and insertion perception experience (IPE) score on a scale of 1-5 (1 = tolerable experience, 5 = worst experience). Unpaired Student's t-test, chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were utilized with significance set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics between PC patients (N = 20) and CT patients (N = 23) were similar. Failure rates (10% PCs vs. 17% CTs, P = 0.49) between cohorts were similar. IO (median, 650 milliliters[ml]; interquartile range[IR], 375-1087; for PCs vs. 400 ml; IR, 240-700; for CTs, P = 0.06), and tube duration was similar, but PC patients reported lower IPE scores (median, 1, "I can tolerate it"; IR, 1-2) than CT patients (median, 3, "It was a bad experience"; IR, 3-4, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In patients with traumatic HTX/HPTX, 14Fr PCs were equally as effective as 28-32Fr CTs with no significant difference in failure rates. PC patients, however, reported a better insertion experience. www.ClinicalTrials.gov Registration ID: NCT02553434.

Rural Trauma Team Development Course Instills Confidence in Critical Access Hospitals.

PURPOSE: The American College of Surgeons' Rural Trauma Team Development Course (RTTDC) was designed to help rural hospitals optimize a team approach to trauma management recognizing the need for early transfer. Little literature exists on the success of RTTDC achieving its objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of RTTDC on rural trauma team members. METHODS: RTTDC was hosted at seven rural hospitals. A pre-course 30-question Likert survey gauging confidence managing trauma patients was administered to participants. Four weeks following, participants received a post-course survey with corresponding Likert questions and 11 trauma knowledge-based questions. Chi-square, Fisher's exact tests and general linear models were utilized. Statistical significance is set as p < 0.05. RESULTS: 111 participants completed the pre-course survey; 53 (48%) completed the post-course survey. Results presented on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = "not at all comfortable" to 5 = "extremely comfortable." Participants knowing their role in the trauma team improved by 16% (p = 0.02). Familiarity with the roles of other trauma team members was significantly improved (3.4 vs. 4.15; p < 0.01). Participants comfort with resuscitating trauma patients and managing traumatic brain injury significantly improved (3.29 vs. 3.69; p = 0.01 and 2.62 vs. 3.14; p = 0.004, respectively). Comfortability communicating with the regional trauma center improved significantly (3.64 vs. 4.19; p = 0.004). Participant decision to transfer trauma patients within 15 min of arrival improved by 3.2%. Participants answered 82% of the knowledge-based questions correctly. CONCLUSION: RTTDC instills confidence in providers at rural hospitals. The information taught is well retained, allowing for quality care and timely patient transfer to the nearest trauma center.

A Prospective Study of 7-Year Experience Using Percutaneous 14-French Pigtail Catheters for Traumatic Hemothorax/Hemopneumothorax at a Level-1 Trauma Center: Size Still Does Not Matter.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of 14-French (14F) pigtail catheters (PCs) compared to 32-40F chest tubes (CTs) in patients with traumatic hemothorax (HTX) and hemopneumothorax (HPTX) is becoming more well known but still lacking. The aim of our study was to analyze our cumulative experience and outcomes with PCs in patients with traumatic HTX/HPTX. We hypothesized that PCs would be as effective as CTs. METHODS: Using our PC database, we analyzed all trauma patients who required chest drainage for HTX/HPTX from 2008 to 2014. Primary outcomes of interest, comparing PCs to CTs, included initial drainage output in milliliters (mL), tube insertion-related complications, and failure rate. For our statistical analysis, we used the unpaired Student's t test, Chi-square test, and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. We defined statistical significance as P < 0.05. RESULTS: During the 7-year period, 496 trauma patients required chest drainage for traumatic HTX/HPTX: 307 by CTs and 189 by PCs. PC patients were older (52 ± 21 vs. 42 ± 19, P < 0.001), demonstrated a significantly higher occurrence of blunt trauma (86 vs. 55%, P ≤ 0.001), and had tubes placed in a non-emergent fashion (Day 1 [interquartile range (IQR) 1-3 days] for PC placement vs. Day 0 [IQR 0-1 days] for CT placement, P < 0.001). All primary outcomes of interest were similar, except that the initial drainage output for PCs was higher (425 mL [IQR 200-800 mL] vs. 300 mL [IQR 150-500], P < 0.001). Findings for subgroup analysis among emergent and non-emergent PC placement were also similar to CT placement. CONCLUSION: PCs had similar outcomes to CTs in terms of failure rate and tube insertion-related complications, and the initial drainage output from PCs was not inferior to that of CTs. The usage of PCs was, however, selective. A future multi-center study is needed to provide additional support and information for PC usage in traumatic HTX/HPTX.

Is Traumatic Anterior Stove-In Chest Truly so Rare? A Single Institution Experience.

INTRODUCTION: The anterior stove-in chest (ASIC) is a rare form of flail chest involving bilateral rib or sternal fractures resulting in an unstable chest wall that caves into the thoracic cavity. Given ASIC has only been described in a handful of case reports, this study sought to review our institution's experience in the surgical management of ASIC injuries. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with ASIC was conducted at our level I trauma center from 1//2021 to 3//2023. Information pertaining to patient demographics, fracture pattern, operative management, and outcomes was obtained and compared across patients in the case series. RESULTS: 6 patients met inclusion criteria, all males aged 37-78 years. 5 suffered motor vehicle collisions, and 1 was a pedestrian struck by an automobile. The median injury severity score was 28. All received ORIF within 5 days of admission, most commonly for ongoing respiratory distress. Patients 2 and 4 underwent bilateral ORIF of the ribs and sternum while patients 1, 5, and 6 underwent left-sided repair. Patient 3 required ORIF of left ribs and the sternum to stabilize their injuries. 5 of 6 patients were liberated from the ventilator and survived to discharge. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates successful operative management of 6 patients with ASIC and suggests that early operative intervention with ORIF for affected segments may improve respiratory mechanics, ability to wean from the ventilator, and overall survival. Further research is needed to generate standardized guidelines for the management of this uncommon and complex thoracic injury.

When more is more: Utilizing finite element analysis to assess chest wall injury stability after surgical stabilization of all rib fractures versus only a portion of the rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) continues to gain acceptance. Controversary exists around the number of rib fractures needing stabilization. We sought to analyze chest wall stability (CWS) after SSRF using finite element analysis (FEA) modeling in various rib fracture patterns, hypothesizing not stabilizing all fractures leaves the chest wall unstable. METHODS: FEA thoracic model development was described previously. Two fracture patterns with three case scenarios each were defined for right ribs 4 to 9. Fracture Pattern 1; Case 1-all 6 ribs with lateral fractures and no stabilization; Case 2-all six fractures stabilized; Case 3-only fractures 5 to 7 were stabilized. Fracture Pattern 2; Case 4-all six ribs fractured in a flail pattern (anterior-lateral and posterior-lateral) and no stabilization; Case 5-all 12 fractures stabilized; Case 6-only six anterior-lateral fractures were stabilized. Three assessment criteria were used to quantify thoracic motion: normalized mean absolute error (NMAE), normalized root mean square error (NRMSE), and normalized interfragmentary motion (NIFM). RESULTS: Fracture Pattern 1: Case 1-NMAE and NRMSE analysis demonstrated significant loss of CWS up to 50% with left axial rotation; Case 2-CWS almost completely returned to nonfractured state; Case 3-CWS loss up to 37%. Fracture Pattern 2: Case 4-up to 49% of CWS lost with right axial rotation; Case 5-less than 3% CWS lost; Case 6-over 40% CWS lost. For both fracture patterns, when stabilizing all fractures, NIFM decreased by 95%. In Case 3, NIFM decreased by 56% and in Case 6, NIFM increased by 1% at the non-stabilized fracture line. CONCLUSION: Stabilizing all rib fractures significantly improves CWS. Not stabilizing both fractures of a flail segment worsens motion at the non-stabilized fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Comparison of patients who meet criteria for surgical stabilization of rib fractures versus those who actually get rib fixation: A single center review.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has shown benefits for rib fracture patients. However, the incidence of SSRF performed remains low. We compare our institution's rib fracture patients meeting criteria for SSRF versus those actually receiving the operation, hypothesizing a significant portion are not undergoing SSRF. METHODS: A retrospective review of rib fracture patients presenting to our Level 1 trauma center from 1/2016 to 4/2023. Patients were categorized as those who met SSRF inclusion criteria versus those who didn't based on the 2023 Chest Wall Injury Society (CWIS) SSRF Guidelines. Basic demographics were obtained. Patients meeting SSRF criteria were divided into those who received SSRF versus those who didn't. Outcomes of interest included type and frequency of SSRF indications and frequency of absolute/relative contraindications. Descriptive statistics were used. Median test and t-test were used for statistical analysis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 3,432 patients presented with ≥1 rib fracture(s). Of those, 1,573(45.8 %) met SSRF inclusion criteria. These patients were predominantly male, with mean age of 57.4(±18.5) and a similar Injury Severity Score but significantly higher chest-Abbreviated Injury Score of 3 (Interquartile range 3,4)(p = 0.048). Only 458(29.1 %) patients underwent SSRF, leaving 1,115(70.9 %) managed non-operatively, of which 215(19.3 %) were ventilated and "failure to wean from the ventilator" was the most common (81.4 %) indication for SSRF. Of the 900(80.7 %) non-ventilated patients managed non-operatively, 659 (69.9 %) had ≥two indications for SSRF, 382(34.3 %) had zero relative contraindications and 394(35.3 %) had one relative contraindication for SSRF. Lastly, 52.6 % of patients in this cohort had reported "clicking/popping" of their fractures. CONCLUSION: Only 29.1 % of patients meeting criteria for SSRF had the operation based on data from our institution. There may be additional opportunity to benefit this cohort of patients meeting SSRF criteria but not undergoing surgery.

It doesn't hurt as long as I don't move: Aligning pain assessment in patients with rib fractures with mobilization needed for recovery.

BACKGROUND: Rib fracture pain is a major issue but likely underappreciated, given that patients avoid activity due to the pain. Pain is one criterion used to determine if someone is a candidate for surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF). The purpose of this study was to assess pain for rib fracture patients, hypothesizing pain from rib fractures is underappreciated in current practice. METHODS: A prospective study analyzing patients with one or more rib fractures admitted to our Level I trauma center from March 2023 through February 2024. Exclusion criteria included refusal to participate, ventilator dependent, younger than 18 years, moderate/severe traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, pregnancy, or incarceration. Basic demographics were obtained. Participants rated their pain on an 11-point Numerical Rating Scale while resting in bed and performing a series of movements (0, no pain; 10, worst pain imaginable). Movements included incentive spirometer, flexion, extension, bilateral side bending, bilateral rotation, and holding a 5-pound dumbbell. Patients undergoing SSRF were surveyed pre- and postoperatively. Outcomes included the difference between pain scores at rest versus performing all movements, difference between pain scores pre- and post-SSRF, and incentive spirometry pre- and postoperatively. Nonparametric analysis was completed with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: One-hundred two patients were enrolled. The mean age was 60 ± 15 years; 57.8% were male. The median pain score at rest was 3 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-5.5). Pain scores significantly increased to >5 for all movements. Thirty-one patients underwent SSRF. Resting pain prior to SSRF was 3 (IQR, 1-6) and postoperatively was 2 (IQR, 1.5-3) (p = 0.446). For all movements, median Numerical Rating Scale score was significantly less after SSRF (p < 0.001). The median incentive spirometry was 1,100 mL (IQR, 625-1,600 mL) preoperatively and 2,000 mL (IQR, 1,475-2,250 mL) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Traditional assessment of pain in patients with rib fractures significantly underappreciates true pain severity caused by movements involving the chest wall and should be considered when evaluating for SSRF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Rural Trauma Team Development Course Positively Impacts its Desired Objectives.

BACKGROUND: The Rural Trauma Team Development Course (RTTDC) is designed to help rural hospitals better organize and manage trauma patients with limited resources. Although RTTDC is well-established, limited literature exists regarding improvement in the overall objectives for which the course was designed. The aim of this study was to analyze the goals of RTTDC, hypothesizing improvements in course objectives after course completion. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study from 2015 through 2021. All hospitals completing the RTTDC led by our Level 1, academic trauma hospital were included. Our institutional database was queried for individual patient data. Cohorts were delineated before and after RTTDC was provided to the rural hospital. Basic demographics were obtained. Outcomes of interest included: Emergency Department (ED) dwell time, decision time to transfer, number of total images/computed tomography scans obtained, and mortality. Chi square and non-parametric median test were used. Significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Sixteen rural hospitals were included with a total of 472 patients transferred (240 before and 232 after). Patient demographics were similar before and after RTTDC. ED dwell time was significantly reduced by 64 min (P = .003) and decision to transfer time was cut by 62 min (P = .004) after RTTDC. Mean total radiographic images and CT scans were significantly reduced (P < .001 and P = .002, respectively) after RTTDC. Mortality was unaffected by RTTDC completion (P = .941). CONCLUSION: The RTTDC demonstrates decreased ED dwell time, decision time to transfer, and number of radiographic images obtained prior to transfer. More rural hospitals should be offered this course.

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.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF): the WSES and CWIS position paper.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are one of the most common traumatic injuries and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite growing evidence, technological advances and increasing acceptance, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains not uniformly considered in trauma centers. Indications, contraindications, appropriate timing, surgical approaches and utilized implants are part of an ongoing debate. The present position paper, which is endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), and supported by the Chest Wall Injury Society, aims to provide a review of the literature investigating the use of SSRF in rib fracture management to develop graded position statements, providing an updated guide and reference for SSRF. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on the position statements. RESULTS: A total of 287 studies (systematic reviews, randomized clinical trial, prospective and retrospective comparative studies, case series, original articles) have been selected from an initial pool of 9928 studies. Thirty-nine graded position statements were put forward to address eight crucial aspects of SSRF: surgical indications, contraindications, optimal timing of surgery, preoperative imaging evaluation, rib fracture sites for surgical fixation, management of concurrent thoracic injuries, surgical approach, stabilization methods and material selection. CONCLUSION: This consensus document addresses the key focus questions on surgical treatment of rib fractures. The expert recommendations clarify current evidences on SSRF indications, timing, operative planning, approaches and techniques, with the aim to guide clinicians in optimizing the management of rib fractures, to improve patient outcomes and direct future research.

A Contemporary Study of Pre-hospital Traumatic Cardiac Arrest: Distinguishing Exsanguination From Non-exsanguination Arrest With a Review of Current Literature.

Background Traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) remains a challenging problem in terms of diagnosis and management. This is due to difficulty distinguishing the TCA cause and therefore understanding the pathophysiology. The goal of this study was to analyze a contemporary series of TCA patients and classify the causes of TCA into exsanguination (EX) arrest and non-exsanguination (non-EX) arrest. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients suffering TCA during 2019 at a level I trauma center. We excluded patients whose arrests were from medical causes such as ventricular fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia, pulmonary embolus, etc., hanging, drowning, thermal injury, outside transfer, and pediatric patients (age <13 as this is our institutional definition for pediatric trauma patients). We reviewed pre-hospital run-sheets, hospital charts including autopsy findings, and classified patients into EX and non-EX TCA. We defined a witnessed arrest (WA) using the traditional outside hospital cardiac (non-trauma) arrest definition. Outcomes included the incidence of EX arrest, survival to discharge, and hospital costs. Descriptive statistics were used. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results After exclusion, 54 patients suffered TCA with a mean age of 45.9 (±19.8) years. Eighty-three percent of patients were male. The average cost per TCA was ~$16,000. Of the 54 TCAs, 26 (48%) were WA, with one (1.85%) survivor (no non-WA TCA patients survived). Twenty-two (41%) patients died from EX-arrest; 59% penetrating vs. 28% blunt (p = 0.03). The one EX-arrest survivor was a 19-year-old gunshot wound to the leg whose arrest was witnessed, with a short downtime, and the cause of arrest (bleeding leg wound) was quickly reversible. Conclusion We classified 41% of TCAs to have died from EX-arrest with only a 1.85% survival rate. This study calls for a TCA pre-hospital registry with accurate and consistent data definitions and collection. The registry should capture the cause of arrest for future research, management decision-making, and prognostication.

Chest Wall Injury Society recommendation for surgical stabilization of nonunited rib fractures to decrease pain, reduce opiate use, and improve patient reported outcomes in patients with rib fracture nonunion after trauma.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common injuries which can be associated with acute pain and chronic disability. While most rib fractures ultimately go on to achieve bony union, a subset of patients may go on to develop non-union. Management of these nonunited rib fractures can be challenging and variability in management exists. METHODS: The Chest Wall Injury Society's Publication Committee convened to develop recommendations for use of surgical stabilization of nonunited rib fractures (SSNURF) to treat traumatic rib fracture nonunions. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database were searched for pertinent studies. Using a process of iterative consensus, all committee members voted to accept or reject the recommendation. RESULTS: No identified studies compared SSNURF to alternative therapy and the overall quality of the body of evidence was rated as low. Risk of bias was identified in all studies. Despite these limitations, there is lower-quality evidence suggesting that SSNURF may be beneficial for decreasing pain, reducing opiate use, and improving patient reported outcomes among patients with symptomatic rib nonunion. However, these benefits should be balanced against risk of symptomatic hardware failure and infection. CONCLUSION: This guideline document summarizes the current CWIS recommendations regarding use of SSNURF for management of rib nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Hardware Infection From Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures Is Lower Than Previously Reported.

Introduction Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is an emerging therapy for the treatment of patients with traumatic rib fractures. Despite the demonstrated benefits of SSRF, there remains a paucity of literature regarding the complications from SSRF, especially those related to hardware infection. Currently, literature quotes hardware infection rates as high as 4%. We hypothesize that the hardware infection rate is much lower than currently published. Methods This is an IRB-approved, four-year multicenter descriptive review of prospectively collected data from January 2016 to June 2022. All patients undergoing SSRF were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included those patients less that 18 years of age. Basic demographics were obtained: age, gender, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Abbreviate Injury Scale-chest (AIS-chest), flail chest (yes/no), delayed SSRF more than two weeks (yes/no), number of patients with a pre-SSRF chest tube, and number of ribs fixated. Primary outcome was hardware infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality rate and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Basic descriptive statistics were utilized for analysis. Results A total of 453 patients met criteria for inclusion in the study. Mean age was 63 ± 15.2 years and 71% were male. Mean ISS was 17.3 ± 8.5 with a mean AIS-chest of 3.2 ± 0.5. Flail chest (three consecutive ribs with two or more fractures on each rib) accounted for 32% of patients. Forty-two patients (9.3%) underwent delayed SSRF. The average number of ribs stabilized was 4.75 ± 0.71. When analyzing the primary outcome, only two patients (0.4%) developed a hardware infection requiring reoperation to remove the plates. Overall HLOS was 10.5 ± 6.8 days. Five patients suffered a mortality (1.1%), all five with ISS scores higher than 15 suggesting significant polytrauma. Conclusion This is the largest case series to date examining SSRF hardware infection. The incidence of SSRF hardware infection is very low (<0.5%), much less than quoted in current literature. Overall, SSRF is a safe procedure with low morbidity and mortality.

Increase in Alcohol Use Among the Geriatric Trauma Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound effects on the everyday behaviors of all patients. At the same time, the United States population is aging, and an increasing portion of traumatically injured patients are geriatric. Our study aims to examine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the geriatric trauma population. We performed a retrospective review of the trauma database from our single institution level I trauma center examining pandemics impact on geriatric trauma demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity, hospitalization characteristics, and alcohol use. Data during the pandemic was compared to the prior 3 years and controlled for seasonality. Statistical analysis demonstrated an increase in duration of mechanical ventilation and alcohol use during the pandemic while other factors remained stable. This shows the need for targeted alcohol assessment in the geriatric trauma population during periods of social isolation and additional research into the effects of the COVID-19 on trauma patients.

Impact of sternal fixation on patient outcomes: A case matched review.

INTRODUCTION: Sternal fractures are debilitating injuries often resulting in severe pain and respiratory compromise. Surgical fixation of sternal fractures is gaining popularity as a treatment modality for sternal fractures. Unfortunately, little literature exists on this topic. This study looks to further examine the benefits of sternal fixation (SF), hypothesizing SF results in improved pain, improved respiratory function, and decreased opioid use. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed between patients with sternal fractures who underwent nonoperative management (NOM) versus operative SF. Case matching was used to construct an artificial control group matched on age and Injury Severity Score using a 1:1 ratio of treatment to control. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 years. Outcomes of interest included mean pain score, total opioid requirements (in morphine milliequivalents) within 24 hours of discharge, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay (LOS), and incentive spirometry percent predicted value at discharge. Dependent variables were analyzed using t test, and Injury Severity Score was analyzed using the sign test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients from the SF cohort were matched with 58 patients from the NOM cohort. The average age was 59.8 years for the SF group and 62.2 years for the NOM group. Injury Severity Score was matched at 9 for both cohorts. Although pain scores were similar for both cohorts, the SF group required significantly less opioids at discharge (62.1 vs. 92.2 morphine milliequivalents; p = 0.007). In addition, the SF cohort demonstrated significantly improved respiratory function per incentive spirometry percent predicted value at discharge (75.5% vs. 59.9%; p < 0.001). Intensive care unit LOS and hospital LOS were similar between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Despite similarities in pain scores, intensive care unit LOS, and hospital LOS, SF was associated with decreased opioid requirements and improved respiratory function at discharge in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is associated with better return on investment for a health care institution than nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) continues to gain popularity due to patient benefits. However, little has been produced regarding the economic benefits of SSRF and its impact on hospital metrics such as Vizient. The aim of this study was to explore these benefits hypothesizing SSRF will demonstrate positive return on investment (ROI) for a health care institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all rib fracture patients over 5 years at our Level I trauma center. Patients were grouped into SSRF versus nonoperative management. Basic demographics were obtained including case mix index (CMI). Outcomes included narcotic requirements in morphine milliequivalents prior to discharge, mortality, and discharge disposition. Furthermore, actual hospital length of stay (ALOS) versus Vizient expected length of stay were compared between cohorts. Contribution margin (CM) was also calculated. Independent t-test, paired t-test, and linear regression analysis were performed, and significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,639 patients were included; 230 (14%) underwent SSRF. Age, gender, and Injury Severity Score were similar. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients had more ribs fractured (7 vs. 4; p < 0.001) and more patients with flail chest (43.5% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients also had a significantly higher CMI (4.33 vs. 2.78; p = 0.001). Narcotic requirements and mortality were less in the SSRF cohort; 155 versus 246 morphine milliequivalents ( p < 0.001) and 1.7% versus 7.1% ( p = 0.003), respectively. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients were more likely to be discharged home (70.4% vs. 63.7%; p = 0.006). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients demonstrated shorter ALOS where nonoperative management patients demonstrated longer ALOS compared with Vizient expected length of stay. Contribution margins for SSRF patients were significantly higher and linear regression analysis showed a CM $1,128.14 higher per patient undergoing SSRF ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SSRF demonstrate a significant ROI for a health care organization. Despite SSRF patients having a higher CMI, they were able to be discharged sooner than expected by Vizient calculations resulting in better a CM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.