Evaluation of patients with surgically stabilized rib fractures by different scoring systems.
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Case-Control Studies
Clinical Decision-Making
Cohort Studies
Conservative Treatment
Contusions
/ etiology
Female
Flail Chest
/ etiology
Fractures, Multiple
/ complications
Humans
Lung Injury
/ etiology
Male
Middle Aged
Patient Selection
Retrospective Studies
Rib Fractures
/ complications
Thoracic Injuries
/ surgery
Chest Trauma score
Rib Fracture Score
Rib Fracture Scoring Systems
Rib fractures
RibScore
Surgical stabilization of rib fractures
Journal
European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society
ISSN: 1863-9941
Titre abrégé: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101313350
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
06
06
2018
accepted:
20
08
2018
pubmed:
23
8
2018
medline:
4
2
2021
entrez:
23
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Surgical Stabilization (SSRF) is gaining popularity as an alternative to non-operative management (NOM) of patients with rib fractures, however, there are no established guidelines for patients' quantifiable evaluation and for SSRF recommendation. Known rib scoring systems include: Rib Fracture Score (RFS), Chest Wall Trauma Score (CWTS), Chest Trauma Score (CTS) and RibScore (RS), but are underutilized. The purpose was to provide values of scoring systems in SSRF and NOM patients and correlate them with treatment assignment. Retrospective cohort study included 87 SSRF and 87 propensity matched NOM patients from two level-1 trauma centers. Clinical variables and score values were compared between two groups. SSRF compared to NOM patients had significantly higher number of total rib fractures, displaced fractures, rates of pulmonary contusion and flail chest. RS and CTS values were significantly higher in SSRF compared to NOM patients (2.3 vs. 1.7, p = 0.001; 5.8 vs. 5.3, p = 0.005, respectively), but RFS and CWTS were similar. Application of scoring systems could help with patients' objective and standardized assessment and may aid in treatment decisions. RibScore was superior to other scoring systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30132024
doi: 10.1007/s00068-018-0999-3
pii: 10.1007/s00068-018-0999-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
441-445Références
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Mar;82(3):524-527
pubmed: 28030506
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Dec;83(6):1047-1052
pubmed: 28700410
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005 Jun 1;30(11):1283-6
pubmed: 15928553
Am J Surg. 2012 Dec;204(6):910-3; discussion 913-4
pubmed: 23036605
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2017 Apr 27;2(1):e000059
pubmed: 29766079
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Jan;80(1):95-101
pubmed: 26683395
Chirurgia (Bucur). 2017 Sept-Oct;112(5):595-606
pubmed: 29088559
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014 Dec;22(12):751-60
pubmed: 25425610
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Oct;65(7):551-559
pubmed: 28187475
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017 Mar;82(3):618-626
pubmed: 28030502
Crit Care Clin. 2017 Jan;33(1):153-165
pubmed: 27894495
J Orthop Trauma. 2018 Jan;32(1):15-21
pubmed: 28902086
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003 Mar;23(3):374-8
pubmed: 12614809
J Trauma Nurs. 2012 Jul-Sep;19(3):168-74; quiz 175-6
pubmed: 22955713
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Jan 5;93(1):97-110
pubmed: 21209274
Surgery. 2014 Oct;156(4):988-93
pubmed: 25239357
Am J Crit Care. 2001 Sep;10(5):320-7; quiz 328-9
pubmed: 11548565
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Feb;80(2):187-94
pubmed: 26595710
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Aug;24(8):575-80
pubmed: 27355282
Injury. 2015 Dec;46(12):2335-40
pubmed: 26521992