Multicenter RCT of SSRF in Non Flail Patients

Rib fracture are the most common serious injury following blunt trauma, and occur in approximately 10% of trauma patients [1]. Despite improvements in the care of rib fracture patients, outcomes remain poor and have not changed substantially over the last 15 years [2]. Poor outcomes resulting from serious rib fractures include both acute complications (e.g., pneumonia, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and death) and chronic disability (e.g., pain, dyspnea, and loss of productivity).

Over the last 10 years, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has emerged as a promising technology for the management of patients with severe chest wall injuries [3]. Conceptually, SSRF applies the fundamental orthopedic principles of reduction and fixation to rib fractures, restoring chest wall stability and minimizing pain with respiration, splinting, and secretion accumulation. The advent of muscle-sparring [4] and even minimally-invasive surgical techniques [5], as well as a relatively low complication rate [6], has improved the appeal of this operation.

To date, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [7-9] and three meta-analyses of these and other trials [10-12] have limited their scope to patients with flail chest, a specific clinical diagnosis characterized by paradoxical motion of a portion of the chest wall due to fractures of two or more ribs in at least two places. Flail chest represents the most severe form of chest wall injury, with an associated, very high morbidity and mortality. Each of the aforementioned RCTs, as well as multiple prospective, non-randomized investigations [13, 14], have found a benefit to SSRF as compared to best medical management in this patient population. Accordingly, expert consensus statements have recommended this operation in this subset of patients [3, 15].

Based upon the favorable reported efficacy of SSRF in patients with flail chest, many surgeons have broadened indications to patients with severe, non-flail rib fracture patterns, most commonly ≥ 3 severely displaced fractures. Although these injuries differ anatomically from flail chest, many of the same pathophysiologic principles are at work: namely, painful motion at the fracture sites cause respiratory compromise, bony bridging [16], and risk of subsequent non-union, chronic pain, and restrictive lung disease. However, it is not clear if stabilization of these fractures confers the same benefits as in the case of flail chest. This lack of efficacy data has been recognized in recent guidelines, which were unable to recommend SSRF for non-flail fracture patterns pending further data. Furthermore, long term quality of life data for both flail and non-flail fracture patterns managed with SSRF are not available.

The use of SSRF is increasing exponentially. Somewhat alarmingly, nearly one half of the procedures were performed in patients without flail chest [17]. A combination of the favorable results observed for SSRD in flail chest, the increasing prevalence of SSRF for non flail-chest, and the lack of quality evidence to support this operation in this patient population, lead to the design of the current RCT. The objective of this trial is to investigate the efficacy of SSRF, as compared to non-operative management, for hospitalized patients with specific, non-flail, severe rib fractures, and within expert, high volume centers that participate in the Chest Wall Injury Society. The investigators hypothesize that SSRF, as compared to standardized medical management, improves pain control, pulmonary function, risk of complications, and quality of life among patients with severe, non-flail chest fracture patterns.