A meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing nonoperative and operative management of chest trauma with multiple rib fractures
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hisamune R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10949653 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6720131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study is to provide a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing conservative and surgical treatment in a population of adults with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. We have exclusively incorporated randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies involving participants with complicated appendicitis or children were excluded. The variables considered are as follows: treatment complications, complication-free treatment success at index admission and at 1 year follow-up, length of hospital stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL) and costs.ResultsEight RCTs involving 3213 participants (1615 antibiotics/1598 appendectomy) were included. There was no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of complication rates (RR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-1.04, P = 0.07, I2 = 69%). Antibiotics had a reduced treatment efficacy compared with appendectomy (RR = 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 to 0.90, p < 0.00001, I2 = 87%) and at 1 year was successful in 540 out of 837 (64.6%, RR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 0.77, p < 0.00001, I2 = 81%) participants. There was no difference in LOS (mean difference - 0.58 days 95% confidence interval - 1.59 to 0.43, p = 0.26, I2 = 99%). The trial sequential analysis has revealed that, concerning the three primary outcomes, it is improbable that forthcoming RCTs will significantly alter the existing body of evidence.ConclusionsAs further large-scale trials have been conducted, antibiotic therapy proved to be safe, less expensive, but also less effective than surgical treatment. In order to ensure well-informed decisions, further research is needed to explore patient preferences and quality of life outcomes.
| S-EPMC10787963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesBlunt chest trauma after mechanical resuscitation manoeuvres appears to have a significant impact on the often complicated course. Due to a lack of data in the literature, the purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and immediate outcome of chest wall stabilization for flail chest in this vulnerable patient population.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation between January 2014 and December 2018 who were diagnosed with flail chest. We attempted to compare patients after surgery with those after conservative treatment.ResultsOf a total of 56 patients with blunt chest trauma after mechanical resuscitation and after coronary angiography, 25 were diagnosed with flail chest. After the exclusion of 2 patients because of an initial decision to palliate, 13 patients after surgical stabilization could be compared with 10 patients after conservative therapy. Although there was no significant difference in the total duration of ventilatory support, there was a significant advantage when the time after stabilization to extubation was compared with the duration of ventilation in the conservative group. The presence of pulmonary contusion, poor Glasgow Coma Scale score or the development of pneumonia negatively affected the outcome, but additional sternal fracture did not.ConclusionsSurgical stabilization for chest wall instability is well tolerated even by this vulnerable patient population. Our results should be used for further randomized controlled approaches. It is necessary to evaluate the situation with all parameters in an interdisciplinary manner and to decide on a possible surgical therapy at an early stage if possible.
| S-EPMC9070522 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rib fractures represent the most common bone fracture, occurring in 10-20% of all blunt trauma patients and leading to concomitant injuries of the inner organs in severe cases. The purpose of this study was to identify specific serial rib fracture patterns after blunt chest trauma. 380 serial rib fracture cases were investigated. Fractures were assigned to five different locations within the transverse plane. Rib level, fracture type, and dislocation grades were recorded and related to the cause of accident. In total, 3735 rib fractures were identified (9.8 per patient). 54% of the rib fractures were detected on the left thorax. Rib fracture distribution exhibited a hotspot at rib levels 4 to 7 in the lateral and posterolateral segments. On average, most rib fractures occurred in crush/burying injuries (15.8, n = 13) and pedestrian accidents (12.8, n = 13), least in car/truck accidents (8.9, n = 75). In the car/truck accident group, 47% of all rib fractures were in the lateral segment, in case of frontal collision (n = 24) even 60%. Fall injuries (n = 141) entailed mostly posterolateral rib fractures (35%). In case of falls >3 m (n = 45), 48% more rib fractures were detected on the left thorax. In cardiopulmonary resuscitation related serial rib fractures (n = 33), 70% of all rib fractures were located anterolaterally. Infractions were the most observed fracture type (44%), followed by oblique (25%) and transverse (18%) fractures, while 46% of all rib fractures were dislocated (15% ≥ rib width). Serial rib fractures showed distinct fracture patterns depending on the cause of accident. When developing a serial rib fracture classification system, data regarding patterns, fracture types, dislocation grades, and associated fractures should be included.
| S-EPMC6922429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsWe 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 registrationRegistered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.
| S-EPMC9925506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe popularity of surgery for acute displaced midshaft clavicle fractures has been fuelled by early randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing improved rates of radiographic union and perceived functional benefits compared with nonoperative approaches. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effect of operative and nonoperative interventions on the risk of secondary operation and complications and on long-term function.MethodsWe search MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for reports of relevant RCTs published to Mar. 7, 2014. Two reviewers assessed eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to summarize the quality of evidence for all outcomes.ResultsWe included 15 RCTs (9 trials comparing operative and nonoperative interventions, 5 comparing implants for operative treatment, and 1 comparing nonoperative treatments). Nonoperative treatments did not differ from operative treatments in the risk of secondary operation (risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 2.35) or all complications (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.50). One in 4 patients had a complication regardless of the treatment approach. Differences in functional outcomes, although smaller than the threshold for minimal important differences at 1 year, favoured operative interventions (standardized mean difference 0.38, 95% CI 0 to 0.75). Evidence for the type of implant or approach to nonoperative treatment remained inconclusive.InterpretationCurrent evidence does not support the routine use of internal fixation for the treatment of displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Complication rates were high regardless of the treatment approach.
| S-EPMC4701658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeTraditionally, clavicle fractures have been treated nonoperatively. However, many recent studies have concentrated on the results of operative treatment. We assessed and compared the outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment for acute clavicle fractures in adults.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of the medical literature from 1966 until the end of March 2011. We included randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials comparing operative and nonoperative treatment and studies comparing different operative and nonoperative treatments. We required that there should be at least 30 adult patients and a follow-up of at least 6 months in each individual trial. We used the GRADE method to assess the quality of evidence.Results6 randomized controlled trials (n = 631) and 7 controlled clinical trials (n = 559) were included. There was moderate-quality evidence (i.e. of grade B) (1) that surgery has considerable effectiveness on better function and less disability at short follow-up, (2) of similar risk of relatively mild complications after operative or nonoperative treatment, (3) that delayed union and nonunion were more common in patients who were treated nonoperatively than in those treated operatively, and (4) that the osteosynthesis method had no effect on the incidence of delayed union or nonunion. Only 1 controlled clinical trial was found on lateral clavicle fractures with very limited (grade D) evidence.InterpretationPatients treated operatively have slightly better function and less disability than those treated nonoperatively at short follow-up, but then the effectiveness diminishes and is weak at 6 months. The different operative techniques may not differ in effectiveness or in adverse effects, but the evidence is very limited or conflicting. Surgery could be considered for active patients who require recovery to the previous level of activity in the shortest possible time.
| S-EPMC3278660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare outcomes in patients with rib fractures (RFX) who underwent surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) to those treated nonoperatively.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTwo Level 1 Trauma Centers.PatientsOne hundred seventy-four patients with multiple RFX divided into 2 groups: patients with surgically stabilized RFX (n = 87) were compared with nonoperatively managed patients in the matched control group (MCG) (n = 87).InterventionSSRF.Outcome measurementsAge, sex, injury severity score, RFX, mortality, hospital length of stay (HLOS) and intensive care unit length of stay (ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), co-injuries, and time to surgery. Patients were further stratified by presence or absence of flail chest and pulmonary contusion (PC).ResultsFlail chest, displaced RFX, and PC were present significantly more often in SSRF patients compared with the MCG. Mortality was lower in SSRF group. HLOS and ICULOS were longer in SSRF group compared with the corresponding MCG patients regardless of timing to surgery (P < 0.01 for all). SSRF patients with flail chest had comparable HLOS, ICULOS, and DMV to MCG patients with flail chest (P > 0.3 for all). SSRF patients without flail chest had significantly longer HLOS and ICULOS than MCG patients without flail chest (P < 0.001 for both). Presence of PC did not affect lengths of stay.ConclusionsSSRF patients had reduced mortality compared with nonoperatively managed patients. HLOS, ICULOS, and DMV were longer in SSRF patients than in MCG. When flail chest was present, lengths of stay were comparable. PC did not seem to affect the surgical outcome.Level of evidenceTherapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
| S-EPMC7002076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeRib fixation for flail chest has been shown to improve in-hospital outcome, but little is known about treatment for multiple rib fractures and long-term outcome is scarce. The aim of this study was to describe the safety, long-term quality of life, and implant-related irritation after rib fixation for flail chest and multiple rib fractures.MethodsAll adult patients with blunt thoracic trauma who underwent rib fixation for flail chest or multiple rib fractures between January 2010 and December 2016 in our level 1 trauma facility were retrospectively included. In-hospital characteristics and implant removal were obtained via medical records and long-term quality of life was assessed over the telephone.ResultsOf the 864 patients admitted with ≥ 3 rib fractures, 166 (19%) underwent rib fixation; 66 flail chest patients and 99 multiple rib fracture patients with an ISS of 24 (IQR 18-34) and 21 (IQR 16-29), respectively. Overall, the most common complication was pneumonia (n = 58, 35%). Six (9%) patients with a flail chest and three (3%) with multiple rib fractures died, only one because of injuries related to the thorax. On average at 3.9 years, follow-up was obtained from 103 patients (62%); 40 with flail chest and 63 with multiple rib fractures reported an EQ-5D index of 0.85 (IQR 0.62-1) and 0.79 (0.62-0.91), respectively. Forty-eight (48%) patients had implant-related irritation and nine (9%) had implant removal.ConclusionsWe 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.
| S-EPMC6689022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury.BackgroundSSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown.MethodsRandomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey.ResultsEighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L.ConclusionsIn severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.
| S-EPMC10527348 | biostudies-literature