Efficacy comparison of standardized incision and conventional incision for reduction and internal fixation of multiple rib fracture
10.3760/cma.j.cn501098-20220427-00316
- VernacularTitle:标准化切口与常规切口复位内固定治疗多发肋骨骨折的疗效比较
- Author:
Zhiming SONG
1
;
Jianming CHEN
;
Jing ZHONG
;
Junhua GUO
;
Xiaoping YU
;
Songlin CHEN
;
Weibin CAI
;
Yuzhen ZHENG
;
Yunfeng YI
Author Information
1. 联勤保障部队第九〇九医院（厦门大学医学院附属东南医院）心胸外科，东部战区心胸外科医学中心，漳州 363000
- Keywords:
Rib fractures;
Fracture fixation, internal;
Incision approach
- From:
Chinese Journal of Trauma
2022;38(11):977-984
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of standardized incision and conventional incision for reduction and internal fixation of multiple rib fracture.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of 192 patients with multiple rib fracture treated in 909th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force (Affiliated Dongnan Hospital of Xianmen University Medical College) from January 2020 to January 2022. There were 101 males and 91 females; aged 32-94 years [(51.5±16.6)years]. The patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation with nickel-titanium shape memory alloy embracer via standard incision such as anterior axillary longitudinal incision (standard incision group, n=96) or conventional incision such as posterolateral incision (conventional incision group, n=96). The incision length, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, number of fixed fractures, indwelling time of closed thoracic drainage tube, postoperative thoracic drainage volume, postoperative spontaneous ambulation time and length of hospital stay were compared in the two groups. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate pain at 1 month after operation. Postoperative complications were recorded. Results:All patients were followed up for 1-16 months [4.0(3.0, 10.5)months]. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, indwelling time of closed thoracic drainage tube, postoperative thoracic drainage volume, postoperative spontaneous ambulation time, length of hospital stay and VAS at postoperative 1 month in standard incision group [(12.1±1.6)cm, (51.4±13.0)minutes, (191.5±16.8)ml, (2.8±0.6)days, (568.9±109.0)ml, (4.1±0.7)days, (11.4±1.7)days, (2.5±0.7)points] were better than those in conventional incision group [(13.7±1.9)cm, (62.0±8.8)minutes, (248.9±65.4)ml, (4.8±1.1)days, (655.9±121.9)ml, (5.2±0.9)days, (15.3± 1.7)days, (3.5±0.7)points] ( P<0.05 or 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the number of fixed fractures between standard incision group and conventional incision group (5.1±0.8 vs. 5.4±0.9) ( P>0.05). In standard incision group, there were 3 patients with poor wound healing, 5 with pulmonary infection, 3 with atelectasis and 3 with small pleural effusion. In conventional incision group, there were 11 patients with poor wound healing, 9 with pulmonary infection, 7 with atelectasis and 7 with small pleural effusion. The incidence of postoperative complications was 14.6% (14/96) in standard incision group and 35.4% (34/96) in conventional incision group ( P<0.01). Conclusion:For multiple rib fracture, standard incision is superior to conventional incision reduction in shortening the incision length, operation time, indwelling time of drainage tube, postoperative spontaneous ambulation time and length of hospital stay, reducing the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative thoracic drainage volume, alleviating the pain and reducing the postoperative complications.
