Nowadays, more trauma patients develop chronic critical illness (CCI), a state characterized by prolonged intensive care. Some of these CCI patients have disproportional difficulties to recover and suffer from recurrent infections, a syndrome described as the persistent inflammation, immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome (PICS). A total of 78 trauma patients with an ICU stay of ≥14 days (CCI patients) between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Within this group, PICS patients were identified through two ways: (1) their clinical course (≥3 infectious complications) and (2) by laboratory markers suggested in the literature (C-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocytes), both in combination with evidence of increased catabolism. The incidence of PICS was 4.7 per 1000 multitrauma patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the laboratory markers was 44% and 73%, respectively. PICS patients had a longer hospital stay (median 83 vs. 40, p < 0.001) and required significantly more surgical interventions (median 13 vs. 3, p = 0.003) than other CCI patients. Thirteen PICS patients developed sepsis (72%) and 12 (67%) were readmitted at least once due to an infection. In conclusion, patients who develop PICS experience recurrent infectious complications that lead to prolonged hospitalization, many surgical procedures and frequent readmissions. Therefore, PICS forms a substantial burden on the patient and the hospital, despite its low incidence.

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.

Background Multiple rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly patients. There is growing interest in surgical stabilization in this subgroup of patients. This systematic review compares conservative treatment to surgical fixation in elderly patients (older than 60 years) with multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome is mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care length of stay (HLOS and ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) and pneumonia rates. Methods Multiple databases were searched for comparative studies reporting on conservative versus operative treatment for rib fractures in patients older than 60 years. Both observational studies and randomised clinical trials were considered. Results Five observational studies (n = 2583) were included. Mortality was lower in operatively treated patients compared to conservative treatment (4% vs. 8%). Pneumonia rate and DMV were similar (5/6% and 5.8/6.5 days) for either treatment modality. Overall ILOS and HLOS of stay were longer in operatively treated patients (6.5 ILOS and 12.7 HLOS vs. 2.7 ILOS and 6.5 ILOS). There were only minimal reports on perioperative complications. Notably, the median number of rib fractures (8.4 vs. 5) and the percentage of flail chest were higher in operatively treated patients (47% vs. 39%). Conclusion It remains unknown to what extent conservative and operative treatment contribute individually to reducing morbidity and mortality in the elderly with multiple rib fractures. To date, the quality of evidence is rather low, thus well-performed comparative observational studies or randomised controlled trials considering all confounders are needed to determine whether operative treatment can improve a patient’s outcome.

Background: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation.Methods: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Clavicle fractures are often accompanied by multiple rib fractures. The combination of these injuries results in decreased stability of the chest wall making these patients vulnerable to prolonged hospitalization and (respiratory) complications. Aims This study aims to assess whether performing clavicle fixation would improve clinical outcomes by adding chest wall stability. Methods A prospective multicenter study was performed including all adult patients with both multiple rib fractures and ipsilateral clavicle fractures admitted between January 2018 and March 2021. Patients treated operatively versus nonoperatively for their clavicle fracture were matched using propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the hospital length of stay. The secondary outcomes were, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay, pain, complications, and quality of life at 6 weeks and 12 months of follow-up. Results A total of 232 patients with concomitant ipsilateral clavicle and rib fractures were included. Fifty-two patients (22%) underwent operative treatment of which 39 could be adequately matched to 39 nonoperatively treated patients. No association was found between clavicle fixation and the hospital length of stay (mean difference=2.3, 95% CI -2.1 to 6.8, p=0.301) or any secondary endpoint. Eight of the 180 nonoperatively treated patients (4%) had a symptomatic nonunion, for which five underwent secondary clavicle fixation. Conclusions In patients with combined, ipsilateral clavicle and multiple rib fractures, plate fixation of the clavicle does not reduce hospital length of stay, pain, or (pulmonary) complications, nor does it improve quality of life.

Over the last decades, the Dutch trauma care have seen major improvements. To assess the performance of the Dutch trauma system, in 2007, the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry (DNTR) was established, which developed into rich source of information for quality assessment, quality improvement of the trauma system, and for research purposes. The DNTR is one of the most comprehensive trauma registries in the world as it includes 100% of all trauma patients admitted to the hospital through the emergency department. This inclusive trauma registry has shown its benefit over less inclusive systems; however, it comes with a high workload for high-quality data collection and thus more expenses. The comprehensive prospectively collected data in the DNTR allows multiple types of studies to be performed. Recent changes in legislation allow the DNTR to include the citizen service numbers, which enables new possibilities and eases patient follow-up. However, in order to maximally exploit the possibilities of the DNTR, further development is required, for example, regarding data quality improvement and routine incorporation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. This would improve the quality assessment and scientific output from the DNTR. Finally, the DNTR and all other (European) trauma registries should strive to ensure that the trauma registries are eligible for comparisons between countries and healthcare systems, with the goal to improve trauma patient care worldwide.