Rib fractures are present in 15% of all traumas and 60% of patients with chest traumas. Rib fractures are not life-threatening in isolation, but they can be quite painful which leads to splinting and compromise of respiratory function. Splinting limits the ability of a patient to take a deep breath, which leads to atelectasis, atelectasis to poor secretion removal, and poor secretion removal leads to pneumonia. Pneumonia is the common pathway to respiratory failure in patients with rib fractures. It is noted that in the elderly, each rib fracture increases developing pneumonia by 27% and the risk of dying by 19%. From a public health perspective, rib fractures have long-term implications with only 59% of patients returning to work at 6 months. In this review we will examine the state of art as it currently exists with regard to the management of pain associated with rib fractures. Included in this overview will be a brief review of the anatomy of the thorax and some important physiologic concepts, the latest trends in pharmacologic and noninvasive means of managing rib pain, a special section on epidural anesthesia, some other alternative invasive methods of pain control, and a review of the recent literature on rib plating. Finally, a practical, easy to follow guideline, to manage the patient with pain from rib fractures will be presented.

Injury is both a national and international epidemic that affects people of all age, race, religion, and socioeconomic class. Injury was the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (U.S.) in 2021 and results in an incalculable emotional and financial burden on our society. Despite this, when prevention fails, trauma centers allow communities to prepare to care for the traumatically injured patient. Using lessons learned from the military, trauma care has grown more sophisticated in the last 50 years. In 1966, the first civilian trauma center was established, bringing management of injury into the new age. Now, the American College of Surgeons recognizes 4 levels of trauma centers (I-IV), with select states recognizing Level V trauma centers. The introduction of trauma centers in the U.S. has been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality for the injured patient. However, despite the proven benefits of trauma centers, the U.S. lacks a single, unified, trauma system and instead operates within a “system of systems” creating vast disparities in the level of care that can be received, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In this review we present the history of trauma system development in the U.S, define the different levels of trauma centers, present evidence that trauma systems and trauma centers improve outcomes, outline the current state of trauma system development in the U.S, and briefly mention some of the current challenges and opportunities in trauma system development in the U.S. today.

Shock is a life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressors and inotropes are vasoactive medications that are vital in increasing systemic vascular resistance and cardiac contractility, respectively, in patients presenting with shock. To be well versed in using these agents is an important skill to have in the critical care setting where patients can frequently exhibit symptoms of shock. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock and evaluate the current evidence behind the management of shock with an emphasis on vasopressors and inotropes.

Background: Increasing trauma center admission volume is said to decrease mortality. Evidence supporting this position is dependent upon patient groups and the time period studied, and gaps remain. We evaluated the effect of annual volume of critically injured patients on hospital mortality, comparing two time periods. The effect of critically injured patient volume on risk-adjusted mortality was hypothesized to decrease over time. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing data from an early group (2007–2011) and late group (2017–2021) of the National Trauma Data Bank. Critically injured adults (ISS > 15) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) or operating room from the emergency department at Level I and II trauma centers were included. The outcome of interest was risk-adjusted mortality across quintiles of patient admission volume, modeled using mixed-effects generalized linear models. Results: In total, 802,824 patients were included, 321,209 and 481,615 in the early and late groups, respectively. In the early group, increased patient volume was associated with a decreased risk-adjusted odds of mortality. This association was not seen in the late group. The overall odds of mortality in the late group demonstrated decreased mortality over time (OR 0.84, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The annual volume of critically injured patients was associated with decreased odds of hospital mortality during 2007–2011, though this effect was no longer present in the 2017–2021 sample. The continued dissemination of the best practices is warranted to decrease mortality, regardless of the admission volume of critically injured patients.