Alexander Fokin1, Joanna Wycech2, Maggie Crawford3, Ivan Puente4. 1. Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida. Electronic address: Alexander.Fokin@tenethealth.com. 2. Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida; Delray Medical Center, Broward Health Medical Center, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida. 3. Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida. 4. Delray Medical Center, Delray Beach, Florida; Delray Medical Center, Broward Health Medical Center, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida; C.E.S. College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Florida Atlantic University, Miami, Florida; H.W. College of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The three known systems for evaluation of patients with rib fractures are rib fracture score (RFS), chest trauma score (CTS), and RibScore (RS). The aim was to establish critical values for these systems in different patient populations. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study included 1089 patients with rib fractures, from level-1 trauma center; divided into two groups: first group included 620 nongeriatric patients, and second group included 469 geriatric patients (≥65 y.o.). Additional variables included mortality, injury severity score (ISS), hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay (HLOS, ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, rate of pneumonia (PN), tracheostomy, and epidural analgesia. RESULTS: RFS critical values were 10 for nongeriatric and eight for geriatric patients, CTS were four and six respectively, and RS were one for both. Nongeriatric patients with RFS ≥10 versus RFS <10, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and tracheostomy (P <0.03). Geriatric patients with RFS ≥8 versus RFS <8, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and PN (P <0.03). Nongeriatric patients with CTS ≥4 versus CTS <4, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, duration of mechanical ventilation, and PN (P < 0.02). Geriatric patients with CTS ≥6 versus CTS <6 had greater values for all variables (P < 0.01). Both groups with RS ≥1 versus RS <1, had greater values for all variables (P < 0.05). In geriatric group, prediction of PN was good by CTS (c = 0.8) and fair by RFS and RS (c = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should choose score to match specific population and collected variables. RFS is simple but sensitive in elderly population. CTS is recommended for geriatric patients as it predicts PN the best. RS is recommended for assessment of severely injured patients with high ISS.
BACKGROUND: The three known systems for evaluation of patients with rib fractures are rib fracture score (RFS), chest trauma score (CTS), and RibScore (RS). The aim was to establish critical values for these systems in different patient populations. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study included 1089 patients with rib fractures, from level-1 trauma center; divided into two groups: first group included 620 nongeriatric patients, and second group included 469 geriatric patients (≥65 y.o.). Additional variables included mortality, injury severity score (ISS), hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay (HLOS, ICULOS), duration of mechanical ventilation, rate of pneumonia (PN), tracheostomy, and epidural analgesia. RESULTS: RFS critical values were 10 for nongeriatric and eight for geriatric patients, CTS were four and six respectively, and RS were one for both. Nongeriatric patients with RFS ≥10 versus RFS <10, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and tracheostomy (P <0.03). Geriatric patients with RFS ≥8 versus RFS <8, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, and PN (P <0.03). Nongeriatric patients with CTS ≥4 versus CTS <4, had higher mortality, ISS, HLOS, ICULOS, duration of mechanical ventilation, and PN (P < 0.02). Geriatric patients with CTS ≥6 versus CTS <6 had greater values for all variables (P < 0.01). Both groups with RS ≥1 versus RS <1, had greater values for all variables (P < 0.05). In geriatric group, prediction of PN was good by CTS (c = 0.8) and fair by RFS and RS (c = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians should choose score to match specific population and collected variables. RFS is simple but sensitive in elderly population. CTS is recommended for geriatric patients as it predicts PN the best. RS is recommended for assessment of severely injured patients with high ISS.
Authors: Elena Callisto; Giorgio Costantino; Andrew Tabner; Dean Kerslake; Matthew J Reed Journal: Intern Emerg Med Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 5.472
Authors: Sami K Kishawi; Vanessa P Ho; Katelynn C Bachman; Christine E Alvarado; Stephanie G Worrell; Luis M Argote-Greene; Philip A Linden; Christopher W Towe Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2021-07-27 Impact factor: 2.192