Abstract
BackgroundThis study aimed to investigate the pulmonary ventilation function (PVF) according to different types of rib fractures and pain levels.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with thoracic trauma admitted to our ward from May 1, 2015, to February 1, 2017. Vital capacity (VC), forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), and peak expiratory flow (PEF) were measured on admission. A numerical rating scale (NRS) was used for pain assessment.ResultsA total of 118 (85 males and 33 females) were included. The location of rib fractures did not affect the PVF. When the number of rib fractures was ≥5, the PVF was lower than in those with ≤4 fractures (VC: 0.40 vs. 0.47, P = 0.009; FEV1: 0.37 vs. 0.44, P = 0.012; PEF: 0.17 vs. 0.20, P = 0.031). There were no difference in PVF values between rib fractures with multiple locations and those with non-multiple locations (VC: 0.41 vs. 0.43, P = 0.202; FEV1: 0.37 vs. 0.39, P = 0.692; PEF: 0.18 vs. 0.18, P = 0.684). When there were ≥ 5 breakpoints, the PVF parameters were lower than those with ≤4 breakpoints (VC: 0.40 vs. 0.50, P = 0.030; FEV1: 0.37 vs. 0.45, P = 0.022; PEF: 0.18 vs. 0.20, P = 0.013). When the NRS ≥ 7, the PVF values were lower than for those with NRS ≤ 6 (VC: 0.41 vs. 0.50, P = 0.003; FEV1: 0.37 vs. 0.47, P = 0.040; PEF: 0.18 vs. 0.20, P = 0.027).ConclusionsWhen the total number of fractured ribs is ≥5, there are ≥5 breakpoints, or NRS is ≥7, the VC, FEV1, and PEF are more affected.Trial registrationThe trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (as revised in 2013). The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People’s Hospital, and individual consent for this retrospectively registered analysis was waived.
Highlights
This study aimed to investigate the pulmonary ventilation function (PVF) according to different types of rib fractures and pain levels
There were no difference in PVF values between rib fractures with multiple locations and those with non-multiple locations (VC: 0.41 vs. 0.43, P = 0.202; forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1): 0.37 vs. 0.39, P = 0.692; peak expiratory flow (PEF): 0.18 vs. 0.18, P = 0.684)
There were no difference in PVF values when separating the patients according to The number of rib fractures ≥4 vs. the number of rib fractures ≤3 (VC: 0.42 vs. 0.50, P = 1.137; FEV1: 0.38 vs. 0.42, P = 0.450; PEF: 0.18 vs. 0.20, P = 0.163), but when The number of rib fractures ≥5 vs. the number of rib fractures ≤4, significant differences were seen (VC: 0.40 vs. 0.47, P = 0.009; FEV1: 0.37 vs. 0.44, P = 0.012; PEF: 0.17 vs. 0.20, P = 0.031) (Table 3)
Summary
This study aimed to investigate the pulmonary ventilation function (PVF) according to different types of rib fractures and pain levels. Rib fractures are frequent in trauma victims, seen in up to 39% of patients following blunt chest trauma and present in 10% of all trauma admissions [1, 2]. The number of rib fractures is often related to the severity of thoracic trauma [1]. A previous study has shown that patients with rib fractures often have declined pulmonary. Wu et al Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery (2021) 16:155 thoracic volume. The larger the movement of the ribs, the larger the change in thoracic volume. Once rib fractures happen, it will cause some degree of decline in pulmonary ventilation function
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
