Search

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.

Abstract 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.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) using standard rib plating systems has become a norm in developed countries. However, the procedure has not garnered much interest in low–middle-income countries, primarily because of the cost. This was a single-center pilot randomized trial. Patients with severe rib fractures were randomized into two groups: SSRF and nonoperative management. SSRF arm patients underwent surgical fixation in addition to the tenets of nonoperative management. Low-cost materials like stainless steel wires and braided polyester sutures were used for fracture fixation. The primary outcome was to assess the duration of hospital stay. Twenty-two patients were randomized, 11 in each arm. Per-protocol analysis showed that the SSRF arm had significantly reduced duration of hospital stay (22.6 ± 19.1 d versus 7.9 ± 5.7 d, P value 0.031), serial pain scores at 48 h and 5 d (median score 5, IQR (3-6) versus median score 7, IQR (6.5-8), P value 0.004 at 48 h and median score 2 IQR (2-3) versus median score 7 IQR (4.5-7) P value 0.0005 at 5 d), significantly reduced need for injectable opioids (9.9 ± 3.8 mg versus 4.4 ± 3.4 mg, P value 0.003) and significantly more ventilator-free days (19.9 ± 8.7 d versus 26.4 ± 3.2 d, P value 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences in the total duration of ICU stay (median number of days 2, IQR 1-4.5 versus median number of days 7, IQR 1-14, P value 0.958), need for tracheostomy (36.4% versus 0%, P value 0.155), and pulmonary and pleural complications. SSRF with low-cost materials may provide benefits similar to standard rib plating systems and can be used safely in resource-poor settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients sustaining multiple rib fractures have a significant risk of developing morbidity and mortality. More evidence is emerging that the indication of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) should expand beyond flail chest. Nevertheless, little is known about factors associated with poor outcomes after surgical fixation. We reviewed patients with rib fractures to further explore the role of SSRF; we matched two groups by propensity score (PS). Method: A comparison of patients with blunt thoracic trauma treated with SSRF between 2010 and 2020 was compared with those who received conservative treatment for rib fractures. Risk factors for poor outcomes were analyzed by multivariate regression analysis. Results: After tailored SSRF, the number of fractured ribs was not associated with longer ventilator days (p = 0.617), ICU stay (p = 0.478), hospital stay (p = 0.706), and increased nonprocedure-related pulmonary complications (NPRCs) (p = 0.226) despite having experienced much more severe trauma. In the multivariate regression models, lower GCS, delayed surgery, thoracotomy, and flail chest requiring mechanical ventilation were factors associated with prolonged ventilator days. Lower GCS, higher ISS, delayed surgery, and flail chest requiring mechanical ventilation were factors associated with longer ICU stays. Lower GCS and older age were factors associated with increased NPRCs. In the PS model, NPRCs risk was reduced by SSRF. Conclusions: The risk of NPRCs was reduced once ribs were surgically fixed through an algorithmic approach, and poor consciousness and aging were independent risk factors for NPRCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Operative management of rib fractures has gained significant popularity over the last years, however, it remains a controversial topic, due to the substantial heterogeneity among rib fracture patients with considerable differences in epidemiology. Hence, the present narrative review aims to provide an overview of the treatment and (long-term) outcomes of rib fractures, with an emphasis on the surgical treatment. Nowadays, computed tomography (CT) has been shown to be most practical and sensitive for detecting rib fractures, of which up to 50% is missed on other imaging modalities. Non-operative treatment by patient-tailored multimodal pain management remains the cornerstone. Still, in the presence of-amidst others-chest wall instability or displaced fractures with physiologic derangements, operative treatment is indicated and should be performed within 72 hours after injury. Here, traumatic brain injury (TBI) and pulmonary contusion are no strict contra-indications, while plate osteosynthesis is considered the standard mode for surgical stabilization. To date, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) only benefits selected groups of patients, awaiting results of ongoing studies. Future directions may include the sole use of percutaneous cryoablation of the intercostal nerves as part of conservative management, as well as the application of three-dimensional (3D) printing and use of bio-absorbable materials in the surgical treatment of rib fractures., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1832/coif). The special series “Chest Wall Resections and Reconstructions” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. J.H.T.D. and E.R.d.L. served as the unpaid Guest Editors of the series. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) should be performed early after injury. Factors that influence timing remain unknown. Our objective was to identify inherent variables that allow for early identification and treatment. We hypothesized that certain demographic, injury, and logistical factors are associated with SSRF <24 hours from admission., Methods: Retrospective review from an urban level 1 trauma center (10/2010-8/2019). Patients were grouped as SSRF <24 hours from admission vs. ≥24 hours. Demographics, transfer from an outside hospital (OSH), timing documentation, injury descriptors, surgeon on-call, and operative surgeon were collected. SSRF for chronic non-union was excluded., Results: Data from 173 patients were analyzed. Eighty-five patients (49%) were in the <24 hours group and 88 (51%) were in the ≥24 hours group. Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Injury severity was significantly higher in the late group: increased Injury Severity Score (ISS; 16.5 vs. 21.0, P<0.01), lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS; 15 vs. 14, P<0.01), more rib fractures (7 vs. 9, P=0.01), and increased incidence of face (6% vs. 16%, P=0.03), spine (22% vs. 47%, P<0.01), and pelvis fractures (8% vs. 25%, P<0.01). Patients admitted on a Wednesday were more likely to undergo early SSRF as compared to other days of the week (P=0.01) There was also a shorter time from the decision to perform SSRF to the actual operation in the early group, as compared to the late group (13 vs. 44 hours, P<0.01). Fifty (28.9%) SSRF cases were performed by the on-call surgeon; this percentage did not differ in the early vs. late group (33% vs. 25%, P=0.25). Patients needing pelvic fixation were more likely to be in the late group. Patients transferred from an OSH for SSRF were more likely to be in the early group (29% vs. 10%, P<0.01). Finally, likelihood of early surgery increased with increasing study year., Conclusions: Approximately one-half of SSRF cases were performed within 24 hours of admission. Factors that influence surgery within 24 hours of admission appear related to overall injury severity and systems issues, including day of admission, transfer from another facility, additional urgent pelvic surgery, and institutional experience with SSRF. Surgeon availability did not drive this disparity., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-857/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is no consensus on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization in multiple rib fractures in Asia, especially among patients with a non-flail rib fracture pattern. We aim to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) in an Asian population with multiple non-flail rib fractures., Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched in this systematic literature review and meta-analysis to identify studies conducted in Asia that included patients with multiple non-flail rib fractures in at least one of their treatment groups. The intervention of interest was SSRF, and the comparator was a nonoperative treatment. The duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) was the primary outcome. Posttreatment pain score, pneumonia, atelectasis, intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS), hospital length of stay (HLOS), need for tracheostomy, respiratory function, functional outcomes, quality of life (QoL), and mortality were identified as the secondary outcomes. A random effects model (REM) was used to pool data for outcomes reported in two or more studies., Results: A total of 12 studies (n=2,440 patients) were included. There was a significantly shorter DMV {mean difference (MD): -5.23 [95% confidence interval (CI): -9.64 to -0.81], P=0.02}, lower 4-week post-treatment pain score [standard mean difference (SMD): -2.24 (95% CI: -3.18 to -1.31), P<0.00001], lower risk for pneumonia [risk ratio (RR): 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23 to 0.95), P=0.04], lower risk for atelectasis [RR: 0.44, (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.65), P<0.0001], shorter ICU LOS [MD: -4.00 (95% CI: -6.33 to -1.66), P=0.0008], and shorter HLOS [MD: -6.54 (95% CI: -9.28 to -3.79), P<0.00001] in favor of SSRF. Effect estimates for the need for tracheostomy [RR: 0.67 (95% CI: 0.42 to 1.08), P=0.10] and mortality [RR: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.37 to 2.41), P=0.90] were nonsignificant., Conclusions: In the Asian population with mainly non-flail rib fracture patterns, SSRF was associated with shorter DMV, ICU LOS, and HLOS as well as lower risks for atelectasis and pneumonia, and pain scores after 4 weeks. The risk of mortality was comparable between treatment groups., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jtd.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jtd-23-1117/coif). All authors report that this study was funded by Johnson & Johnson (JnJ) for the conduct of literature search and statistical analysis, and payments were made to ClinChoice Inc. RS and SPA report that they are working with ClinChoice Inc. as contractor to JnJ at the time of the study. PG receives honoraria from Zimmer Biomet and DePuy Synthes for conducting training sessions (which includes discussing the risks and benefits of rib fixation) two to three times a year. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2023 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

The practice of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) for severe chest wall injury has exponentially increased over the last decade due to improved outcomes as compared to nonoperative management. However, regarding in-hospital outcomes, the ideal time from injury to SSRF remains a matter of debate. This review aims to evaluate and summarize currently available literature related to timing of SSRF. Nine studies on the effect of time to SSRF were identified. All were retrospective comparative studies with no detailed information on why patients underwent early or later SSRF. Patients underwent SSRF most often for a flail chest or ≥3 displaced rib fractures. Early SSRF (≤48-72 hours after admission) was associated with shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (HLOS and ICU-LOS, respectively), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), and lower rates of pneumonia, and tracheostomy as well as lower hospitalization costs. No difference between early or late SSRF was demonstrated for mortality rate. As compared to nonoperative management, late SSRF (>3 days after admission), was associated with similar or worse in-hospital outcomes. The optimal time to perform SSRF in patients with severe chest wall injury is early (≤48-72 hours after admission) and associated with improved in-hospital outcomes as compared to either late salvage or nonoperative management. These data must however be cautiously interpreted due the retrospective nature of the studies and potential selection and attrition bias. Future research should focus on both factors and pathways that allow patients to undergo early SSRF., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-649). The series “European Perspectives in Thoracic Surgery (2020) - the Seven Edition” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. MMEW is a lecturer and ad hoc consultant for Johnson & Johnson DePuy Synthes and has received a research grant outside the submitted work from an association sponsored by Stryker. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is now a common operation at most high-volume trauma centers. Increased experience with the procedure has spawned a variety of technical modifications to minimize incision length, muscle division, scapular retraction, and general tissue trauma. The ultimate example of such a minimally invasive approach is completely thoracoscopic SSRF, which refers to using a video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) technique to both reduce and fixate rib fractures in an intra-thoracic fashion. The benefits of thoracoscopic SSRF may be divided broadly into those that relate to the repair of the rib fractures themselves, and those that relate to adjuncts to rib fracture repair. With respect to the former, theoretical benefits include improved visualization of rib fractures (particularly in posterior and sub-scapular locations), minimization of trauma to overlying muscles and nerves, minimization of trauma to intra-thoracic structures, and elimination of palpable plates. With respect to the latter, theoretical advantages include evacuation of retained hemothorax, guided placement of loco-regional anesthesia and chest tubes, and identification and repair of associated, intra-thoracic injuries. A VATS may also aid in trainee education. Despite these theoretical benefits, early attempts at thoracoscopic SSRF have been limited by both user inexperience and inadequate instrumentation. Furthermore, there are currently no data comparing the efficacy of completely thoracoscopic SSRF to either contemporary, minimally-invasive, extra-thoracic SSRF or non-operative management., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Dr. FM Pieracci is a paid educator for DePuy Synthes and receives research funding from DePuy Synthes.

The clinical treatment choices for multiple rib fractures and flail chest are controversial. For example, among conservative treatment and surgical treatment, different studies have different conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore, early clinical research was mainly focused on the treatment of flail chest due to its severity. Nowadays, the treatment for multiple rib fractures patients without a flail chest is drawing an increased clinical interest. However, we are facing many challenges for the treatment of rib fractures, such as insufficient understanding of the available treatment options, lack of clinical research, lack of the internationally recognized clinical indication for the surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF), and the constant controversies and debates in terms of treatment options, surgery timing, and surgical techniques. All these challenges make it difficult to select the most appropriated clinical decisions for the proper treatment of a rib fracture, resulting in a seriously hindered development of novel rib fractures treatment choices. The concepts and ideas for traditional rib fractures treatment are relatively old, and even have some misunderstandings or errors. With the emergence of more and more research, the understandings of the rib fractures treatment has gradually improved; for example, the benefits provided to patients under the open reductions and internal fixation of fractures treatment. In this article, we outlined the new concepts in rib fractures treatment, which mainly included four parts, damage control, pain management, fixation selection, and quality of life. We hope these concepts help practitioners better manage rib fracture patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.