Abstract
There has been a substantial increase in the surgical treatment of unstable chest wall injuries recently. While a variety of fixation methods exist, most surgeons have used plate and screw fixation. Rib-specific locking plate systems are available, however evidence supporting their use over less-expensive, conventional plate systems (such as pelvic reconstruction plates) is lacking. We sought to address this by comparing outcomes between locking plates and non-locking plates in a cohort of patients from a prior randomized trial who received surgical stabilization of their unstable chest wall injury.
We used data from the surgical group of a previous multi-centred, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing surgical fixation of acute, unstable chest wall injuries to non-operative management. In this substudy, our primary outcome was hardware-related complications and re-operation. Secondary outcomes included ventilator free days (VFDs) in the first 28 days following injury, length of ICU and hospital stay, and general health outcomes (SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores). Categorical variables are reported as frequency counts and percentages and the two groups were compared using Fisher's Exact test. Continuous data are reported as median and interquartile range and the two groups were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.
From the original cohort of 207 patients, 108 had been treated surgically and had data available on the type of plate construct used. Fifty-nine patients (55%) had received fixation with non-locking plates (primarily 3.5 or 2.7 mm pelvic reconstruction plates) and 49 (45%) had received fixation with locking plates (primarily rib-specific locking plates). The two groups were similar in regard to baseline and injury characteristics. In the non-locking group, 15% of patients (9/59) had evidence of hardware loosening versus 4% (2/49 patients) in the locking group (p = 0.1). The rate of re-operation for hardware complications was 3% in the non-locking group versus 0% in the locking group (p = 0.5). No patients in either group required revision fixation for loss of reduction or nonunion. There were no differences between the groups with regard to VFDs (26.3 [19.6 – 28] vs. 27.3 [18.3 – 28], p = 0.83), length of ICU stay (6.5 [2.0 – 13.1] vs 4.1 [0 – 11], p = 0.12), length of hospital stay (17 [10 – 32] vs. 17 [10 – 24], p = 0.94) or SF-36 PCS (40.9 [33.6 – 51.0] vs 43.4 [34.1 – 49.6], p = 0.93) or MCS scores (47.8 [36.9 – 57.9] vs 46.9 [40.5 – 57.4], p = 0.95).
We found no statistically significant differences in outcomes between patients who received surgical stabilization of their unstable chest wall injury when comparing non-locking plates versus locking plates. However, the rate of hardware loosening was nearly 4 times higher in the non-locking plate group and trended towards statistical significance, although re-operation related to this was less frequent. This finding is not surprising, given the inherent challenges of rib fixation including thin bones, comminution, potential osteopenia and a post-operative environment of constant motion. We believe that the increased cost of locking plate fixation in this setting is likely justifiable given these findings.
