We need a common definition and treatment algorithm for displaced rib fracture
Önder Kavurmacı1,Sercan Aydın2,Barış Gülmez3,Seda Kahraman4,Tevfik İlker Akçam4,Ali Özdil4,Ayşe Gül Ergönül4,Onur Akçay5,Banu Yoldaş3,Asuman Akın Türker6,Ekin Zorlu1,Ali Karakılıç7
Current Thoracic Surgery
2022;7(2):074-081. (29 July 2022)
1Department of Thoracic Surgery, Health Sciences University, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
2Department of Thoracic Surgery, Izmir Democracy University Buca Seyfi Demirsoy Education and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
3Department of Thoracic Surgery, Health Sciences University, Dr Suat Seren Chest Science and Chest Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
4Department of Thoracic Surgery, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey
5Department of Thoracic Surgery, Bakırçay University, Çiğli Education Hospital, Izmir, Turkey
6Bodrum State Hospital, Muğla, Turkey
7Balıkesir Atatürk City Hospital, Balıkesir, Turkey
DOI :
10.26663/cts.2022.012
Viewed :
6408 -
Downloaded :
3535
Background: Displaced rib fracture (DRF) definition is frequently used to draw attention to severity
and importance of fracture in daily practice. DRF is associated with increased morbidity and mortality
in addition patients with DRF should be followed more carefully. Despite these characteristics, we do
not have a clear definition for DRF concept and big differences of opinion among physicians could be
monitored. In this study, we tried to reveal these perceptual differences and emphasized the importance
of creating a common language for DRF.
Materials and Methods: We used a special and inventive survey form which contains visual section,
true-false section and case reports. In the visual section, real tomography images and schematic
drawings were presented to participants and asked which were compatible with DRF. In the true-false
section, propositions about the definition of DRF were presented. Finally, imaginary trauma cases were
presented and the minimum follow-up period was questioned.
Results: 156 physicians from 23 different center were included in the study. Of the participants, 56 (35.9%)
were emergency physicians, 54 (34.6%) were thoracic surgeons and 46 (29.5%) were radiologists. The
answers were statistically different for 3 tomography image (p = 0.056, p < 0.001, p = 0.001) and for 1
schematic drawings (p = 0.001). Again in 4 of the 7 true-false questions, there were significant differences
between answers (p = 0.001, p = 0.001, p = 0.005, p < 0.001). The minimum follow-up period for a patient
with DRF was also different between physicians, and have been recommended as 15.9 ± 2.2 (2-72 hours)
by emergency physicians, 27.3 ± 5.5 (2-120) by radiologist and 31.5 ± 3.1 (2-120) by thoracic surgeons.
Conclusions: Our study clearly demonstrates a big conflict about DRF defination and treatment among
physicians. There is also no consensus on the minimum follow-up time. We believe that our study will
be a guide for multidisciplinary clinical studies on this subject.
Keywords :
fractures, injuries, radiology, ribs, questionnaires, emergencies
