肋骨骨折手术稳定的趋势：当代文献综述

Q2 Medicine

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma Pub Date : 2025-04-23 DOI:10.1016/j.jcot.2025.103028

Matthew Masoudi , Ropafadzo Muchabaiwa , Elizabeth Wake , Bhavik Patel

{"title":"肋骨骨折手术稳定的趋势：当代文献综述","authors":"Matthew Masoudi , Ropafadzo Muchabaiwa , Elizabeth Wake , Bhavik Patel","doi":"10.1016/j.jcot.2025.103028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Blunt chest trauma leading to rib fractures is a common injury, accounting for 20 % of thoracic trauma cases. Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures (SSRF) has gained popularity due to advancements in surgical techniques and multidisciplinary care, resulting in improved patient outcomes. Despite a growing body of literature on SSRF, inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting limit the synthesis of findings and the establishment of clear clinical guidelines. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing SSRF literature, identifying prevalent trends and reported outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was registered with Open Science Framework (8V9KN). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from inception to March 1, 2025. Studies were included if they reported on SSRF for blunt chest trauma in human patients. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, patient demographics, reported outcomes, and methodological rigor.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1462 articles were screened, with 185 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority (N = 162, 88 %) were published between 2015 and 2025, with the highest number in 2022. Most studies (N = 144, 78 %) employed a cohort study design, predominantly retrospective (N = 115, 80 %), while randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constituted only 8 % (N = 15). Hospital outcomes, including length of stay (N = 112) and ICU stay (N = 97), were the most frequently reported measures. Complications were documented in 124 studies, with pneumonia (N = 90) and mortality (N = 94) being the most common. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were included in 60 studies (32 %), with pain (N = 46, 78 %) and quality of life (N = 23, 39 %) as key measures. Device and procedural details were reported in 70 studies (38 %), with 62 using the same device. However, variations in outcome measurement and a predominance of retrospective designs limit comparability.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>SSRF literature has expanded significantly over the past decade, yet inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting hinder the development of standardized clinical guidelines. Future research should prioritize prospective, multi-center trials with uniform reporting standards to enhance the reliability and applicability of findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":53594,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article 103028"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A contemporary literature review\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Masoudi , Ropafadzo Muchabaiwa , Elizabeth Wake , Bhavik Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcot.2025.103028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Blunt chest trauma leading to rib fractures is a common injury, accounting for 20 % of thoracic trauma cases. Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures (SSRF) has gained popularity due to advancements in surgical techniques and multidisciplinary care, resulting in improved patient outcomes. Despite a growing body of literature on SSRF, inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting limit the synthesis of findings and the establishment of clear clinical guidelines. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing SSRF literature, identifying prevalent trends and reported outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was registered with Open Science Framework (8V9KN). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from inception to March 1, 2025. Studies were included if they reported on SSRF for blunt chest trauma in human patients. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, patient demographics, reported outcomes, and methodological rigor.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 1462 articles were screened, with 185 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority (N = 162, 88 %) were published between 2015 and 2025, with the highest number in 2022. Most studies (N = 144, 78 %) employed a cohort study design, predominantly retrospective (N = 115, 80 %), while randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constituted only 8 % (N = 15). Hospital outcomes, including length of stay (N = 112) and ICU stay (N = 97), were the most frequently reported measures. Complications were documented in 124 studies, with pneumonia (N = 90) and mortality (N = 94) being the most common. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were included in 60 studies (32 %), with pain (N = 46, 78 %) and quality of life (N = 23, 39 %) as key measures. Device and procedural details were reported in 70 studies (38 %), with 62 using the same device. However, variations in outcome measurement and a predominance of retrospective designs limit comparability.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>SSRF literature has expanded significantly over the past decade, yet inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting hinder the development of standardized clinical guidelines. Future research should prioritize prospective, multi-center trials with uniform reporting standards to enhance the reliability and applicability of findings.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53594,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma\",\"volume\":\"66 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103028\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0976566225001250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0976566225001250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

钝性胸外伤导致肋骨骨折是一种常见的损伤，占胸外伤病例的20%。由于手术技术和多学科治疗的进步，肋骨骨折手术稳定（SSRF）越来越受欢迎，从而改善了患者的预后。尽管关于SSRF的文献越来越多，但研究设计和结果报告的不一致性限制了研究结果的综合和明确临床指南的建立。本综述旨在提供现有SSRF文献的概述，确定流行趋势和报告的结果。方法根据Arksey和O'Malley的框架和范围审查的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南进行系统的范围审查。该研究已在开放科学框架（8V9KN）注册。对MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和Cochrane CENTRAL从成立到2025年3月1日进行了全面检索。如果研究报告了SSRF治疗人类钝性胸部创伤，则纳入研究。数据提取侧重于研究特征、患者人口统计学、报告结果和方法严谨性。结果共筛选文献1462篇，符合纳入标准的文献185篇。大多数（N = 162, 88%）发表于2015年至2025年之间，最多的是2022年。大多数研究（N = 144, 78%）采用队列研究设计，主要是回顾性研究（N = 115, 80%），而随机对照试验（rct）仅占8% （N = 15）。住院结果，包括住院时间（N = 112）和ICU住院时间（N = 97），是最常报告的指标。124项研究记录了并发症，肺炎（N = 90）和死亡（N = 94）是最常见的。60项研究（32%）纳入了患者报告的预后（PROMs），以疼痛（N = 46, 78%）和生活质量（N = 23, 39%）作为关键指标。70项研究（38%）报告了器械和程序细节，其中62项使用相同的器械。然而，结果测量的差异和回顾性设计的优势限制了可比性。ssrf文献在过去十年中有了显著的扩展，但研究设计和结果报告的不一致性阻碍了标准化临床指南的发展。未来的研究应优先考虑具有统一报告标准的前瞻性、多中心试验，以提高研究结果的可靠性和适用性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

$Trends in surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A contemporary literature review$

查看原文本刊更多论文

Trends in surgical stabilization of rib fractures: A contemporary literature review

Background

Blunt chest trauma leading to rib fractures is a common injury, accounting for 20 % of thoracic trauma cases. Surgical Stabilization of Rib Fractures (SSRF) has gained popularity due to advancements in surgical techniques and multidisciplinary care, resulting in improved patient outcomes. Despite a growing body of literature on SSRF, inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting limit the synthesis of findings and the establishment of clear clinical guidelines. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing SSRF literature, identifying prevalent trends and reported outcomes.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. The study was registered with Open Science Framework (8V9KN). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from inception to March 1, 2025. Studies were included if they reported on SSRF for blunt chest trauma in human patients. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, patient demographics, reported outcomes, and methodological rigor.

Results

A total of 1462 articles were screened, with 185 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority (N = 162, 88 %) were published between 2015 and 2025, with the highest number in 2022. Most studies (N = 144, 78 %) employed a cohort study design, predominantly retrospective (N = 115, 80 %), while randomized controlled trials (RCTs) constituted only 8 % (N = 15). Hospital outcomes, including length of stay (N = 112) and ICU stay (N = 97), were the most frequently reported measures. Complications were documented in 124 studies, with pneumonia (N = 90) and mortality (N = 94) being the most common. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) were included in 60 studies (32 %), with pain (N = 46, 78 %) and quality of life (N = 23, 39 %) as key measures. Device and procedural details were reported in 70 studies (38 %), with 62 using the same device. However, variations in outcome measurement and a predominance of retrospective designs limit comparability.

Conclusion

SSRF literature has expanded significantly over the past decade, yet inconsistencies in study design and outcome reporting hinder the development of standardized clinical guidelines. Future research should prioritize prospective, multi-center trials with uniform reporting standards to enhance the reliability and applicability of findings.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

CiteScore

4.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

181

审稿时长

92 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma (JCOT) aims to provide its readers with the latest clinical and basic research, and informed opinions that shape today''s orthopedic practice, thereby providing an opportunity to practice evidence-based medicine. With contributions from leading clinicians and researchers around the world, we aim to be the premier journal providing an international perspective advancing knowledge of the musculoskeletal system. JCOT publishes content of value to both general orthopedic practitioners and specialists on all aspects of musculoskeletal research, diagnoses, and treatment. We accept following types of articles: • Original articles focusing on current clinical issues. • Review articles with learning value for professionals as well as students. • Research articles providing the latest in basic biological or engineering research on musculoskeletal diseases. • Regular columns by experts discussing issues affecting the field of orthopedics. • "Symposia" devoted to a single topic offering the general reader an overview of a field, but providing the specialist current in-depth information. • Video of any orthopedic surgery which is innovative and adds to present concepts. • Articles emphasizing or demonstrating a new clinical sign in the art of patient examination is also considered for publication. Contributions from anywhere in the world are welcome and considered on their merits.