Tag Archives: rib fractures

Thorax

Can I Keep Patients With More Than Three Rib Fractures At My Level IV Trauma Center?

Leave a comment

Rib fractures are one of the most common thoracic injuries presenting to trauma centers. Traditionally, many state designation standards set limits on the number of rib fractures in patients to be admitted to Level IV trauma centers. The assumption was that these centers had limited surgical capabilities and might not have the expertise to manage them to achieve optimal patient outcomes. They were then forced to transfer these patients upstream to a higher-level trauma center.

And then, unfortunately, COVID came along, and things changed. Mainly for the worse. Due to reduced professional staffing throughout the entire continuum of health care, the upstream centers are saturated and have limited availability to absorb patients who don’t take advantage of their increased resources.

Both staffing and reimbursement issues strain rural EMS agencies. It is difficult to justify transferring a patient to a center that takes the only ambulance in the community out of service for a good portion of the day. Also, most current state trauma system standards do not fully appreciate non-surgeon clinicians’ interest and skill levels at those Level IV centers.

The Pennsylvania Trauma Systems Foundation recognized these issues at the centers in its state. In 2020, it opted to liberalize the number of rib fractures that could be treated at Level IV centers. It required hospitalists to be current in ATLS in order to admit these patients. The centers were also required to adhere to a chest injury guideline created for them.

To gauge the safety and effectiveness of this change, a retrospective state registry study was performed comparing patients admitted during the 2.5 years before the standards change to the 2.5 years after. Demographics, injury characteristics, length of stay, and mortality were compared between the groups. Patients were excluded if they had significant injuries in other body regions, were age < 18 years of age, or had complicated fractures (requiring supplemental oxygen on admission, concomitant pneumothorax or hemothorax, pulmonary contusion or laceration, or who did not require admission

Here are the factoids:

  • Over 4,000 patients were recorded in the registry during the 5 years, but 3350 were excluded due to the definition of complex rib fractures
  • A final total of 1,070 patients were included, with 710 admitted to Level III centers and 360 to Level IV centers
  • This left 132 Level III patients and 228 Level IV patients in the pre- and post-standard groups, respectively
  • The number of transfers out of the Level IV centers dropped significantly, from 56% to 21%
  • Patients with <3 rib fractures had the same length of stay as those with more than three (3 vs 2, respectively)
  • Mortality was extremely low and not significantly different based on the number of rib fractures

Bottom line: This study showed that the change in admission standards for rib fractures in Pennsylvania did not impact outcomes and resulted in significantly fewer transfers.

The key to a successful change like this involves education and protocols. The requirement that hospitalists be current in ATLS is beneficial because it gives them a better understanding of the physiologic effects and priorities in managing trauma patients. A well-designed practice guideline is critical so that all clinicians apply best practices in caring for these patients. 

This is an important paper, and should be considered in any state where local resources are being challenged, and hospital reimbursements are declining. This type of standards change may breathe new life into many of our Level IV centers.

Thorax

Delayed Hemothorax In Older Adults: Real Or Not?

Leave a comment

I came across an interesting paper in the Journal of Trauma & Acute Care Surgery Open recently. I always read these articles a bit more critically, though, because the peer review process just doesn’t feel quite the same to me as the more traditional journal process. But maybe it’s just me.

In this paper, the authors decided to look at the incidence of delayed hemothorax because “emerging evidence suggests HTX in older adults with rib fractures may experience subtle hemothoraces that progress in a delayed fashion over several days.” They cite two references to back up this rationale.

They retrospectively reviewed records from two busy US Level I trauma centers for adults age 50 or older who were diagnosed with delayed hemothorax (dHTX). Delayed was defined as 48 hours or more after initial chest CT showed either a minimal or trace HTX. The authors went on to analyze the characteristics and demographics of the patients involved.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 14 older adults experienced dHTX after rib fractures, an overall incidence of 1.3% (!)
  • About half were diagnosed during the initial hospitalization for the fractures
  • All patients had multiple fractures, with an average of 6 consecutive ones; four had a flail chest
  • One third progressed from a trace HTX, two thirds had a completely negative initial chest CT
  • Only one third were taking anticoagulants or anti-platelet agents
  • Patients with multiple fractures, posteriorly located, and displaced were most likely to develop dHTX

The authors concluded that “delayed progression and delayed development of HTX among older adults with rib fractures require wider recognition.”

Bottom line: Really? First, I looked at the papers cited by the authors as the rationale for doing this study. They each found dHTX in about 10% of patients, but their definition was very broad: any fluid visible on upright chest x-ray. Furthermore, the patients were not really “older” either. Average age was around 50. 

So I’m not sure yet whether this is a problem, especially with the low incidence of 1.3%. This study doesn’t come right out and state how many patients they reviewed to find their 14, but it can be calculated to be 14 / 1.3% = 1,177. This incidence is only one tenth of that found in the two studies cited. Seems relatively uncommon, and half were discovered while the patients were still in the hospital. Thus only 0.65% sought readmission for chest discomfort or difficulty breathing.

This study required chest CT for rib fracture diagnosis. Is all that radiation (and possibly contrast) really necessary? And did these patients get another chest CT to delineate the pathology? More radiation?

Overall, this paper was not very helpful to me. Yes, I have seen patients come back days or weeks later with a hemothorax that was not seen during their first visit. It’s just that this study raises many more questions that should have been easily answered in the discussion. But they weren’t.

Given that only about a half of a percent of rib fracture patients develop delayed hemothorax after discharge, it is probably prudent to provide information to the patient recommending they see their practitioner if they develop any symptoms days or weeks later.  And a simple chest x-ray should do.

Reference: Complication to consider: delayed traumatic hemothorax in older adults. Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open 2021;6:e000626. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2020-000626.

Imaging, Tips

Best Of: Finding Rib Fractures On Chest X-Ray

Leave a comment

A lot of people have been viewing and requesting this post recently.

Here’s a neat trick for finding hard to see rib fractures on standard chest xrays.

First, this is not for use with CT scans. Although chest CT is the “gold standard” for finding every possible rib fracture present, it should never be used for this. Rib fractures are generally diagnosed clinically, and they are managed clinically. There is little difference in the management principles of 1 vs 7 rib fractures. Pain management and pulmonary toilet are the mainstays, and having an exact count doesn’t matter. That’s why we don’t get rib detail xrays any more. We really don’t care. Would you deny these treatments in someone with focal chest wall pain and tenderness with no fractures seen on imaging studies? No. It’s still a fracture, even if you can’t see it.

So most rib fractures are identified using plain old chest xray. Sometimes they are obvious, as in the image of a flail chest below.

But sometimes, there are only a few and they are hard to distinguish, especially if the are located laterally. Have a look at this image:

There are rib fractures on the left side side on the posterolateral aspects of the 4th and 5th ribs. Unfortunately, these can get lost with all the other ribs, scapula, lung markings, etc.

Here’s the trick. Our eyes follow arches (think McDonald’s) better than all these crazy lines and curves on the standard chest xray. So tip the xray on its side and make those curves into nice arches, then let your eyes follow them naturally:

Much more obvious! In the old days, we could just manually flip the film to either side. Now you have to use the rotate buttons to properly position the digital image.

Final exam: click here to view a large digital image of a nearly normal chest xray. There is one subtle rib fracture. See if you can pick it out with this trick. You’ll have to save it so you can manipulate it with your own jpg viewer. 

Related posts:

Abstracts

EAST 2018 #6: Predicting Deterioration After Rib Fracture

Leave a comment

Yes, more on predictions. We all know that chest trauma is one of the bigger causes of morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. A number of methods have been developed to predict which patients might deteriorate after sustaining chest injury, and where to place them in the hospital on admission. Elderly patients are at particular risk, and determining who to look after more closely, and/or in the intensive care unit, can be very helpful.

The authors of this abstract from West Virginia University took a slightly different approach. Let’s say we have already placed a patient in a ward bed after admission for rib fractures. How can we monitor them and preemptively increase interventions or move to the ICU before they crash and burn?

The WVU group developed a rib fracture guideline nearly 10 years ago, and retrospectively reviewed their experience with 1106 patients over a 6 year period. They measured serial forced vital capacity readings in these patients, and arbitrarily used thresholds of <1, 1-1.5, and >1.5 to predict deterioration.

To boost your memory, look at the following chart. The vital capacity is the maximum amount of volume that can be voluntarily exhaled.

Here are the factoids:

  • Only patients with initial FVC > 1 were enrolled in the study
  • They were then separated into two groups: those whose FVC remained greater than 1 (83%), and those in whom it decreased below 1 (17%)
  • Patients in the low FVC group had significantly more complications like pneumonia, intubation, or unplanned transfer to ICU (15% vs 3%) and a longer length of stay
  • However, the low FVC group also had a higher chest AIS score, higher ISS, were 10 years older, and were twice as likely to have COPD

Bottom line: Seems like a promising study, right? Check out an easy to measure, objective test and step up your level of care if it dips below a certain critical value? But not so fast. The two study groups look like they are very different. No significance testing was shown for these differences, but they certainly look like they should be different. Couldn’t their deterioration have been predicted based on their age and degree of chest injury?

Here are some questions for the authors to consider before their presentation:

  • Please provide the details of your rib fracture pathway
  • Your FVC threshold does not have any units assigned. I am assuming that it is in liters. Please clarify.
  • Why did you describe three cohorts initially, then settle on the lowest (FVC < 1) as your final threshold? Was there a method to this? Why not 1.5? Or 0.75?
  • Did you do any further analysis to try to determine if the differences between the groups were responsible for the differences in complication rates?
  • Big picture question: So why couldn’t you just use a specific age/ISS/comorbidity threshold and predict failure at the time of admission, and forget about measuring several FVC values?

Reference: EAST 2018 Podium paper #9.

Anatomy, Procedures, Thorax

EAST 2017 #10: A Simple Way To Predict Complications After Rib Fracture?

Leave a comment

Rib fractures are a common injury, and a very common cause of morbidity. Every time I admit an elderly patient with rib fractures, I debate whether they should go to the ICU or a ward bed. Could there be a more objective way of determining the likelihood of complications, aggressiveness of treatment, and admission unit?

A group at West Virginia University implemented a rib fracture pathway in 2009, and have been collecting data on patients ever since. It was based on the measurement of forced vital capacity (FVC) on admission. This is the total amount of air that can be exhaled during a forced breath.

The authors subdivided their patients into two groups based on the total volume exhaled (<1.5L, and >1.5L). They retrospectively reviewed 6 years of data, looking at specific injuries, complications, and unexpected transfer to ICU. They hypothesized that patients in the highest FVC group would have fewer complications.

Here are the factoids:

  • There was a nearly even split in groups, with 678 patients who had FVC > 1.5L, and 682 with FVC < 1.5
  • There were significantly fewer complications and pneumonia, as well as fewer readmissions in the FVC > 1.5 group
  • Higher FVC was not associated with fewer unexpected transfers to ICU
  • Length of stay was half as long (4d vs 8d) in the high FVC group, but no p value was provided
  • The authors conclude that patients with FVC much greater than 1.5 are at lower risk for complications regardless of the number of fractures (???!)
  • They even suggest that patients with FVC > 1.5 could be discharged from the ED rather than be admitted (!)

Bottom line: Well, it started out good! The abstract showed that the high FVC patients had fewer complications and readmissions. And the length of stay was shorter, although significance was not noted. But the jump to correlating complication risk with number of fractures was not addressed in the abstract. And I can’t quite grasp the leap to suggesting possible discharge from the ED. 

FVC may be an inexpensive and simple test to administer in new rib fracture patients. But it’s ability to predict who goes to ICU and who goes home from the ED was not really identified in the study. 

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  1. A minor point, but the upper limit was defined as > 1.5L in some parts of the abstract, and > 1.5L in  others. Small point, but keep it clean. Make sure all the greater than, less than, and equals signs are consistent.
  2. Was the shorter length of stay significantly different between the groups?
  3. Did you do any stratification by age?
  4. How did you make the conclusion that patients could be sent home from the ED?
  5. And did you do any correlations with your FVC data and the number of fractures? It’s not in the abstract.

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related post:

Reference: Is an FVC of 1.5 adequate for predicting respiratory sufficiency in rib fractures? Paper #4, EAST 2017.