We show that rib fixation is a safe procedure and that patients reported a relative good quality of life. Patients should be counseled that after rib fixation approximately half of the patients will experience implant-related irritation and about one in ten patients requires implant material removal.

IntroductionA trend has evolved towards rib fixation for flail chest although evidence is limited. Little is known about rib fixation for multiple rib fractures without flail chest. The aim of this study is to compare rib fixation with nonoperative treatment for both patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures.Methods and analysisIn this study protocol for a multicentre prospective cohort study, all patients with three or more rib fractures admitted to one of the five participating centres will be included. In two centres, rib fixation is performed and in three centres nonoperative treatment is the standard-of-care for flail chest or multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome measures are intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay for patients with a flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures, respectively. Propensity score matching will be used to control for potential confounding of the relation between treatment modality and length of stay. All analyses will be performed separately for patients with flail chest and patients with multiple rib fractures without flail chest.Ethics and disseminationThe regional Medical Research Ethics Committee UMC Utrecht approved a waiver of consent (reference number WAG/mb/17/024787 and METC protocol number 17–544/C). Patients will be fully informed of the purpose and procedures of the study, and signed informed consent will be obtained in agreement with the General Data Protection Regulation. Study results will be submitted for peer review publication.Trial registration numberNTR6833

Background Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. Results In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8–9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI − 0.2–0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. Conclusions We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. Trial registration Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the incidence of combined clavicle and rib fractures and the association between these two injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on the 14th of August 2020. Outcome measures were incidence, hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit admission and length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), mortality, chest tube duration, Constant–Murley score, union and complications. Results Seven studies with a total of 71,572 patients were included, comprising five studies on epidemiology and two studies on treatment. Among blunt chest trauma patients, 18.6% had concomitant clavicle and rib fractures. The incidence of rib fractures in polytrauma patients with clavicle fractures was 56–60.6% versus 29% in patients without clavicle fractures. Vice versa, 14–18.8% of patients with multiple rib fractures had concomitant clavicle fractures compared to 7.1% in patients without multiple rib fractures. One study reported no complications after fixation of both injuries. Another study on treatment, reported shorter ILOS and less complications among operatively versus conservatively treated patients (5.4 ± 1.5 versus 21 ± 13.6 days). Conclusion Clavicle fractures and rib fractures are closely related in polytrauma patients and almost a fifth of all blunt chest trauma patients sustain both injuries. Definitive conclusions could not be drawn on treatment of the combined injury. Future research should further investigate indications and benefits of operative treatment of this injury.

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant when evaluating the treatment of orthopaedic injuries. Little is known about how PROs may vary in the setting of polytrauma or secondary to high-energy injury mechanisms, even for common injuries such as distal radius fractures. Questions/purposes (1) Are polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms associated with poorer long-term PROs (EuroQol Five Dimension Three Levels [EQ-5D-3L] and QuickDASH scores) after distal radius fractures? (2) What are the median EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS [EuroQol VAS], and QuickDASH scores for distal radius fractures in patients with polytrauma, high-energy monotrauma and low-energy monotrauma Methods This was a retrospective study with followup by questionnaire. Patients treated both surgically and conservatively for distal radius fractures at a single Level 1 trauma center between 2008 and 2015 were approached to complete questionnaires on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (the EQ-5D-3L and the EQ-VAS) and wrist function (the QuickDASH). Patients were grouped according to those with polytrauma (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16), high-energy trauma (ISS < 16), and low-energy trauma based on the ISS score and injury mechanism. Initially, 409 patients were identified, of whom 345 met the inclusion criteria for followup. Two hundred sixty-five patients responded (response rate, 77% for all patients; 75% for polytrauma patients; 76% for high-energy monotrauma; 78% for low-energy monotrauma (p = 0.799 for difference between the groups). There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents. The association between polytrauma and high-energy injury mechanisms and PROs was assessed using forward stepwise regression modeling after performing simple bivariate linear regression analyses to identify associations between individual factors and PROs. Median outcome scores were calculated and presented. Results Polytrauma (intraarticular: β -0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.21 to -0.02]; p = 0.015) was associated with lower HRQoL and poorer wrist function (extraarticular: β 11.9; 95% CI, 0.4–23.4; p = 0.043; intraarticular: β 8.2; 95% CI, 2.1–14.3; p = 0.009). High-energy was associated with worse QuickDASH scores as well (extraarticular: β 9.5; 95% CI, 0.8–18.3; p = 0.033; intraarticular: β 11.8; 95% CI, 5.7–17.8; p < 0.001). For polytrauma, high-energy trauma, and low-energy trauma, the respective median EQ-5D-3L outcome scores were 0.84 (range, -0.33 to 1.00), 0.85 (range, 0.17–1.00), and 1.00 (range, 0.174–1.00). The VAS scores were 79 (range, 30–100), 80 (range, 50–100), and 80 (range, 40–100), and the QuickDASH scores were 7 (range, 0– 82), 11 (range, 0–73), and 5 (range, 0–66), respectively. Conclusions High-energy injury mechanisms and worse HRQoL scores were independently associated with slightly inferior wrist function after wrist fractures. Along with relatively well-known demographic and injury characteristics (gender and articular involvement), factors related to injury context (polytrauma, high-energy trauma) may account for differences in patient-reported wrist function after distal radius fractures. This information may be used to counsel patients who suffer a wrist fracture from polytrauma or high-energy trauma and to put their outcomes in context. Future research should prospectively explore whether our findings can be used to help providers to set better expectations on expected recovery. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.