Fokin Alexander, Wycech Joanna, Chin Shue Kyle, Stalder Ryan, Lozada Jose, Puente Ivan
Division of Trauma and Critical Care Services, Delray Medical Center, 5352 Linton Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL, 33484, USA.
Division of Trauma and Critical Care Services, Broward Health Medical Center, 1600 S Andrews Ave, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33316, USA.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021 Aug;47(4):965-974. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01149-7. Epub 2019 May 22.
Patients with rib fractures (RF) may require prolonged mechanical ventilation and tracheostomy. Indications for tracheostomy in trauma patients with RF remain debatable. The goal was to delineate characteristics of patients who underwent tracheostomy due to thoracic versus extra-thoracic causes, such as maxillofacial-mandibular injury (MFM), traumatic brain injury (TBI), and cervical vertebrae trauma (CVT), and to analyze clinical outcomes. The predictive values of chest trauma scoring systems for tracheostomy were also evaluated. We hypothesized that tracheostomized patients were more severely injured with more ribs fractured and had more pulmonary co-injuries.
Retrospective review included 471 patients with RF admitted to two Level 1 trauma centers. Patients with tracheostomy (n = 124, 26.3%) were compared to patients with endotracheal intubation (n = 347, 73.7%). Analyzed variables included age, gender, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale, number of ribs fractured, total fractures of ribs, prevalence of bilateral rib fractures, flail chest, clavicle fractures, MFM, TBI, CVT, co-injuries, comorbidities, RF treatment options, hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit LOS (ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV).
Tracheostomized compared to intubated patients had statistically higher ISS, more ribs fractured, total fractures of the ribs, bilateral and clavicle fractures, MFM, spine, chest, and orthopedic co-injuries and longer HLOS, ICULOS and DMV. Tracheostomy for thoracic reasons was performed in 64 patients (51.6%) and for extra-thoracic reasons in 60 patients (48.4%). Mean tracheostomy timing was 9.9 days and was significantly shorter in the extra-thoracic compared to the thoracic group (8.0 versus 11.6 days, p < 0.001). All chest trauma scoring system values were significantly higher in tracheostomized patients. Predictive values of scoring systems for tracheostomy increased in patients with thoracic trauma only.
A quarter of mechanically ventilated patients with RF required tracheostomy. Tracheostomized compared to intubated patients were more severely injured with more ribs fractured and were intubated longer. An increased amount of RF was associated with an increase in tracheostomies, especially for thoracic reasons.
肋骨骨折(RF)患者可能需要长时间机械通气和气管切开术。创伤性RF患者气管切开术的指征仍存在争议。本研究旨在描述因胸部原因与胸外原因(如颌面部-下颌骨损伤(MFM)、创伤性脑损伤(TBI)和颈椎创伤(CVT))而接受气管切开术的患者特征,并分析临床结局。同时评估胸部创伤评分系统对气管切开术的预测价值。我们假设接受气管切开术的患者损伤更严重,肋骨骨折更多,肺部合并损伤更多。
回顾性分析了两家一级创伤中心收治的471例RF患者。将接受气管切开术的患者(n = 124,26.3%)与接受气管插管的患者(n = 347,73.7%)进行比较。分析的变量包括年龄、性别、损伤严重程度评分(ISS)、格拉斯哥昏迷量表、肋骨骨折数量、肋骨总骨折数、双侧肋骨骨折患病率、连枷胸、锁骨骨折、MFM、TBI、CVT、合并损伤、合并症、RF治疗方案、住院时间(HLOS)、重症监护病房住院时间(ICULOS)、机械通气时间(DMV)。
与插管患者相比,接受气管切开术的患者ISS在统计学上更高,肋骨骨折更多、肋骨总骨折数更多、双侧和锁骨骨折更多、MFM、脊柱、胸部和骨科合并损伤更多,HLOS、ICULOS和DMV更长。因胸部原因行气管切开术的患者有64例(51.6%),因胸外原因行气管切开术的患者有60例(48.4%)。气管切开术的平均时间为9.9天,胸外组明显短于胸部组(8.0天对11.6天,p < 0.001)。所有胸部创伤评分系统的值在接受气管切开术的患者中均显著更高。评分系统对气管切开术的预测价值仅在胸部创伤患者中增加。
四分之一的机械通气RF患者需要气管切开术。与插管患者相比,接受气管切开术的患者损伤更严重,肋骨骨折更多,插管时间更长。RF数量增加与气管切开术增加相关,尤其是因胸部原因。