The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2022
Prospective randomized trial of metal versus resorbable plates in surgical stabilization of rib fractures.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ashley Dennis W, Christie Dudley B, Long Eric L, Adiga Rajani, Johns Tracy J, Fabico-Dulin Josephine, Montgomery Anne
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures has gained popularity as both metal and resorbable plates have been approved for fracture repair. Is there a difference between metal and resorbable plate rib fixation regarding rib fracture alignment, control of pain, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores (Rand SF-36 survey)?
METHODS: Eligible patients (pts) included 18 years or older with one or more of the following: flail chest, one or more bicortical displaced fractures (3-10), nondisplaced fractures with failure of medical management. Patients were randomized to either metal or resorbable plate fixation. Primary outcome was fracture alignment. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, opioid use, and QOL scores.
RESULTS: Thirty pts were randomized (15 metal/15 resorbable). Total ribs plated 167 (88 metal/79 resorbable). Patients with rib displacement at day of discharge (DOD) metal 0/14 (one pt died, not from plating) versus resorbable 9/15 or 60% ( p = 0.001). Ribs displaced at DOD metal 0/88 versus resorbable 22/79 or 28% ( p < 0.001), 48% in posterior location. Patients with increased rib displacement 3 months to 6 months: metal, 0/11 versus resorbable, 3/9 or 33% ( p = 0.043). Ribs with increased displacement 3 months to 6 months metal 0 of 67 versus resorbable 6 of 49 or 12.2% ( p < 0.004). Pain scores and narcotic use at postoperative Days 1, 2, 3, DOD, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months showed no statistically significant difference between groups. QOL scores were also similar at 3 months and 6 months. Trauma recidivism in outpatient period resulted in fracture of resorbable plates in two pts requiring a second surgery.
CONCLUSION: Metal plates provided better initial alignment with no displacement over time. Clinical outcomes were similar regarding pain, narcotic use, and QOL scores. Routine use of resorbable plates for posterior rib fractures is not warranted. Lateral repairs were technically most feasible for using resorbable plates but still resulted in significant displacement. Resorbable plates may not maintain rib alignment when exposed to subsequent injury.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.
METHODS: Eligible patients (pts) included 18 years or older with one or more of the following: flail chest, one or more bicortical displaced fractures (3-10), nondisplaced fractures with failure of medical management. Patients were randomized to either metal or resorbable plate fixation. Primary outcome was fracture alignment. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, opioid use, and QOL scores.
RESULTS: Thirty pts were randomized (15 metal/15 resorbable). Total ribs plated 167 (88 metal/79 resorbable). Patients with rib displacement at day of discharge (DOD) metal 0/14 (one pt died, not from plating) versus resorbable 9/15 or 60% ( p = 0.001). Ribs displaced at DOD metal 0/88 versus resorbable 22/79 or 28% ( p < 0.001), 48% in posterior location. Patients with increased rib displacement 3 months to 6 months: metal, 0/11 versus resorbable, 3/9 or 33% ( p = 0.043). Ribs with increased displacement 3 months to 6 months metal 0 of 67 versus resorbable 6 of 49 or 12.2% ( p < 0.004). Pain scores and narcotic use at postoperative Days 1, 2, 3, DOD, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months showed no statistically significant difference between groups. QOL scores were also similar at 3 months and 6 months. Trauma recidivism in outpatient period resulted in fracture of resorbable plates in two pts requiring a second surgery.
CONCLUSION: Metal plates provided better initial alignment with no displacement over time. Clinical outcomes were similar regarding pain, narcotic use, and QOL scores. Routine use of resorbable plates for posterior rib fractures is not warranted. Lateral repairs were technically most feasible for using resorbable plates but still resulted in significant displacement. Resorbable plates may not maintain rib alignment when exposed to subsequent injury.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.