Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht Traumacenter, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Aug;45(4):655-663. doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-1037-1. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
Over the years, a trend has evolved towards operative treatment of flail chest although evidence is limited. Furthermore, little is known about operative treatment for patients with multiple rib fractures without a flail chest. The aim of this study was to compare rib fixation based on a clinical treatment algorithm with nonoperative treatment for both patients with a flail chest or multiple rib fractures.
All patients with ≥ 3 rib fractures admitted to one of the two contributing hospitals between January 2014 and January 2017 were retrospectively included in this multicenter cohort study. One hospital treated all patients nonoperatively and the other hospital treated patients with rib fixation according to a clinical treatment algorithm. Primary outcome measures were intensive care length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. To control for potential confounding, propensity score matching was applied.
A total of 332 patients were treated according to protocol and available for analysis. The mean age was 56 (SD 17) years old and 257 (77%) patients were male. The overall mean Injury Severity Score was 23 (SD 11) and the average number of rib fractures was 8 (SD 4). There were 92 patients with a flail chest, 37 (40%) had rib fixation and 55 (60%) had non-operative treatment. There were 240 patients with multiple rib fractures, 28 (12%) had rib fixation and 212 (88%) had non-operative treatment. For both patient groups, after propensity score matching, rib fixation was not associated with intensive care unit length of stay (for flail chest patients) nor with hospital length of stay (for multiple rib fracture patients), nor with the secondary outcome measures.
No advantage could be demonstrated for operative fixation of rib fractures. Future studies are needed before rib fixation is embedded or abandoned in clinical practice.
多年来,对于连枷胸患者,手术治疗的趋势一直在发展,尽管证据有限。此外,对于没有连枷胸的多发性肋骨骨折患者的手术治疗方法知之甚少。本研究的目的是比较基于临床治疗方案的肋骨固定与非手术治疗对连枷胸和多发性肋骨骨折患者的疗效。
本多中心队列研究回顾性纳入了 2014 年 1 月至 2017 年 1 月期间在 2 家参与医院就诊的所有至少 3 根肋骨骨折的患者。一家医院对所有患者均采用非手术治疗,另一家医院则根据临床治疗方案对患者采用肋骨固定术。主要结局指标分别为连枷胸患者和多发性肋骨骨折患者的重症监护病房住院时间和总住院时间。为了控制潜在混杂因素,采用倾向评分匹配。
共有 332 名患者按方案治疗并进行了分析。患者的平均年龄为 56(17)岁,257 名(77%)为男性。总体损伤严重度评分平均为 23(11),肋骨骨折平均数量为 8(4)根。92 例患者为连枷胸,37 例(40%)患者接受了肋骨固定术,55 例(60%)患者接受了非手术治疗。240 例患者为多发性肋骨骨折,28 例(12%)患者接受了肋骨固定术,212 例(88%)患者接受了非手术治疗。在进行倾向评分匹配后,对于连枷胸患者,肋骨固定术与重症监护病房住院时间无关,也与总住院时间无关,与次要结局指标也无关。
不能证明手术固定肋骨骨折有优势。在肋骨固定术被纳入或放弃临床实践之前,需要进一步研究。