Journal of the Formosan Medical Association = Taiwan yi zhi · 2025
Real-world time-trend impact of rib fracture fixation on patients with multiple trauma using propensity score and ARIMA approaches.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tang Wen-Ruei, Chang Chao-Chun, Wang Chih-Jung, Yang Tsung-Han, Hung Kuo-Shu, Wu Chun-Hsien, Yen Yi-Ting, Tseng Yau-Lin, Shan Yan-Shen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Thoracic injuries, especially rib fractures, carry high morbidity and mortality. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has emerged as a promising approach to reduce pulmonary complications. We aimed to analyze the benefits of SSRF beyond flail chest and make the study applicable to clinical practice.
METHODS: This study compared SSRF and conservative treatments at a tertiary trauma center. A time series analysis and propensity score matching were applied to evaluate the outcomes. Data from a trauma registry (January 2017 to December 2020) were used. Exclusion criteria included patients with non-salvageable injuries and those transferred after 72 h. Primary outcomes were ventilator-free days on day 28 (VFD28) and non-procedural pulmonary complications (NPRCs).
RESULTS: Of 770 eligible patients, 692 were enrolled, with 164 undergoing SSRF. SSRF patients had significantly longer VFD28 (22.5 vs. 19.0; P = 0.042) and reduced NPRCs (8.0 % vs. 14.5 %; P = 0.086). Subgroup analysis showed that SSRF patients requiring mechanical ventilation had longer ICU-free days (IFD28) and hospital-free days (HFD90) and lower mortality rates. Those not receiving ventilation but with more than three rib fractures also benefited from SSRF in terms of reduced NPRCs.
CONCLUSION: SSRF improved clinical outcomes in more than just flail chest cases, benefiting patients with multiple rib fractures, both with and without mechanical ventilation. These findings support the broader clinical application of SSRF.
METHODS: This study compared SSRF and conservative treatments at a tertiary trauma center. A time series analysis and propensity score matching were applied to evaluate the outcomes. Data from a trauma registry (January 2017 to December 2020) were used. Exclusion criteria included patients with non-salvageable injuries and those transferred after 72 h. Primary outcomes were ventilator-free days on day 28 (VFD28) and non-procedural pulmonary complications (NPRCs).
RESULTS: Of 770 eligible patients, 692 were enrolled, with 164 undergoing SSRF. SSRF patients had significantly longer VFD28 (22.5 vs. 19.0; P = 0.042) and reduced NPRCs (8.0 % vs. 14.5 %; P = 0.086). Subgroup analysis showed that SSRF patients requiring mechanical ventilation had longer ICU-free days (IFD28) and hospital-free days (HFD90) and lower mortality rates. Those not receiving ventilation but with more than three rib fractures also benefited from SSRF in terms of reduced NPRCs.
CONCLUSION: SSRF improved clinical outcomes in more than just flail chest cases, benefiting patients with multiple rib fractures, both with and without mechanical ventilation. These findings support the broader clinical application of SSRF.