Nowadays, more trauma patients develop chronic critical illness (CCI), a state characterized by prolonged intensive care. Some of these CCI patients have disproportional difficulties to recover and suffer from recurrent infections, a syndrome described as the persistent inflammation, immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome (PICS). A total of 78 trauma patients with an ICU stay of ≥14 days (CCI patients) between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Within this group, PICS patients were identified through two ways: (1) their clinical course (≥3 infectious complications) and (2) by laboratory markers suggested in the literature (C-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocytes), both in combination with evidence of increased catabolism. The incidence of PICS was 4.7 per 1000 multitrauma patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the laboratory markers was 44% and 73%, respectively. PICS patients had a longer hospital stay (median 83 vs. 40, p < 0.001) and required significantly more surgical interventions (median 13 vs. 3, p = 0.003) than other CCI patients. Thirteen PICS patients developed sepsis (72%) and 12 (67%) were readmitted at least once due to an infection. In conclusion, patients who develop PICS experience recurrent infectious complications that lead to prolonged hospitalization, many surgical procedures and frequent readmissions. Therefore, PICS forms a substantial burden on the patient and the hospital, despite its low incidence.

Background: Patients with multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest are increasingly being treated with rib fixation; however, high-quality evidence to support this development is lacking. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter observational study comparing rib fixation to non-operative treatment in all patients aged 18 years and older with computed tomography confirmed multiple rib fractures without a clinical flail chest. Three centers performed rib fixation as standard of care. For adequate comparison, the other three centers performed only non-operative treatment. As such clinical equipoise formed the basis for the comparison in this study. Patients were matched using propensity score matching. Results: In total 927 patients with multiple rib fractures were included. In the three hospitals that performed rib fixation, 80 (14%) out of 591 patients underwent rib fixation. From the nonoperative centers, on average 71 patients were adequately matched to 71 rib fixation patients after propensity score matching. Rib fixation was associated with an increase in hospital length of stay (HLOS) of 4.9 days (95%CI 0.8–9.1, p = 0.02) and a decrease in quality of life (QoL) measured by the EQ5D questionnaire at 1 year of 0.1 (95% CI − 0.2–0.0, p = 0.035) compared to non-operative treatment. A subgroup analysis of patients who received operative care within 72 h showed a similar decrease in QoL. Up to 22 patients (28%) who underwent surgery experienced implant-related irritation. Conclusions: We found no benefits and only detrimental effects associated with rib fixation. Based on these results, we do not recommend rib fixation as the standard of care for patients with multiple rib fractures. Trial registration: Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register NTR6833 on 13/11/2017.

Background: Multiple rib fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, especially in elderly patients. There is growing interest in surgical stabilization in this subgroup of patients. This systematic review compares conservative treatment to surgical fixation in elderly patients (older than 60 years) with multiple rib fractures. The primary outcome is mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care length of stay (HLOS and ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) and pneumonia rates. Methods: Multiple databases were searched for comparative studies reporting on conservative versus operative treatment for rib fractures in patients older than 60 years. Both observational studies and randomised clinical trials were considered. Results: Five observational studies (n = 2583) were included. Mortality was lower in operatively treated patients compared to conservative treatment (4% vs. 8%). Pneumonia rate and DMV were similar (5/6% and 5.8/6.5 days) for either treatment modality. Overall ILOS and HLOS of stay were longer in operatively treated patients (6.5 ILOS and 12.7 HLOS vs. 2.7 ILOS and 6.5 ILOS). There were only minimal reports on perioperative complications. Notably, the median number of rib fractures (8.4 vs. 5) and the percentage of flail chest were higher in operatively treated patients (47% vs. 39%). Conclusion: It remains unknown to what extent conservative and operative treatment contribute individually to reducing morbidity and mortality in the elderly with multiple rib fractures. To date, the quality of evidence is rather low, thus well-performed comparative observational studies or randomised controlled trials considering all confounders are needed to determine whether operative treatment can improve a patient’s outcome.

Background: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients is not yet fully elucidated. Of all treatment options, reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and non-operative treatment (NOT) appear to provide the best results. Evidence to guide the choice between the two is sparse. Therefore, this review provides an overview of the available evidence on RSA versus NOT. Methods: Studies comparing complex proximal humerus fractures in patients aged >65 years treated either with RSA or NOT were included for systematic review and direct comparison via pooled analysis of patient-rated outcome and range of motion. Indirect comparison of case series and non-comparative studies on either treatment was performed separately. Results: Three comparative studies including 77 patients treated with RSA and 81 treated non-operatively were analysed. The RSA group scored better for both the Constant–Murley score (mean difference 6 points) and DASH score (mean difference 8 points). No differences were detected in ASES, PENN score, pain scores, or range of motion between treatment groups. The most common complications for RSA were infection (3%), nerve injury (2%), and dislocation (2%). Reoperation was required in 5%. In the NOT group, common complications included malunion (42%), osteonecrosis (25%), and non-union (3%); no reoperation was required. Patient satisfaction was equal in both groups. Conclusions: The functional outcomes and range of motion after RSA seemed satisfactory and potentially superior to NOT in elderly patients. Patient satisfaction was comparable despite a high malunion and osteonecrosis rate in the non-operative treatment group, which did not require re-interventions.

Over the last decades, the Dutch trauma care have seen major improvements. To assess the performance of the Dutch trauma system, in 2007, the Dutch Nationwide Trauma Registry (DNTR) was established, which developed into rich source of information for quality assessment, quality improvement of the trauma system, and for research purposes. The DNTR is one of the most comprehensive trauma registries in the world as it includes 100% of all trauma patients admitted to the hospital through the emergency department. This inclusive trauma registry has shown its benefit over less inclusive systems; however, it comes with a high workload for high-quality data collection and thus more expenses. The comprehensive prospectively collected data in the DNTR allows multiple types of studies to be performed. Recent changes in legislation allow the DNTR to include the citizen service numbers, which enables new possibilities and eases patient follow-up. However, in order to maximally exploit the possibilities of the DNTR, further development is required, for example, regarding data quality improvement and routine incorporation of health-related quality of life questionnaires. This would improve the quality assessment and scientific output from the DNTR. Finally, the DNTR and all other (European) trauma registries should strive to ensure that the trauma registries are eligible for comparisons between countries and healthcare systems, with the goal to improve trauma patient care worldwide.

Background: The aim of this single-center randomized controlled trial was to compare primary wound closure using a suture with secondary wound healing of pin sites after removal of temporary external fixation. Methods: This noninferiority trial included all patients who were treated with a temporary external fixator on an upper or lower extremity at 1 institution. The primary outcome was pin-site infection. Secondary outcomes were measured at 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks and included all other complications, time to pin-site wound healing (in weeks), the most satisfactory pin site as rated by the patient, the visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, and the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). The most proximal pin site was randomly allocated (1:1) to either primary closure or secondary wound healing, and the other pin sites were treated alternately. Results: Seventy patients, providing 241 pin sites, were included between January 1, 2019, and March 1, 2020. A total of 123 pin sites were treated with primary closure and 118, with secondary wound healing. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 46 to 67 years), 44% were male, and the median duration of the external fixation was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8 days). There were no pin-site infections in either group. Wound healing was significantly faster in the primary closure group (median of 2 versus 6 weeks, p = 0.013). The VSS and patient satisfaction showed no differences between groups. There was 1 case of fracture-related infection not related to any pin site. Conclusions: Primary closure of temporary external fixator pin sites did not result in higher infection rates compared with secondary wound healing, and pin sites healed significantly faster after primary closure. Primary closure should therefore be considered in patients treated with a temporary external fixator. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.