Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures
Abstract Background Rib fractures are often treated conservatively, but for cases with significant displacement or instability, surgical intervention may be necessary. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the standard surgical approach; however, the tunnel minimally invas...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-07-01
|
| Series: | European Journal of Medical Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-025-02864-1 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849388304301031424 |
|---|---|
| author | Da-Wei Sun Hui-Xia Zhai Jun-Hua Zhi Ke-Qin Chen Xiao Pang Meng Xu |
| author_facet | Da-Wei Sun Hui-Xia Zhai Jun-Hua Zhi Ke-Qin Chen Xiao Pang Meng Xu |
| author_sort | Da-Wei Sun |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Rib fractures are often treated conservatively, but for cases with significant displacement or instability, surgical intervention may be necessary. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the standard surgical approach; however, the tunnel minimally invasive technique is emerging as a less invasive alternative. This study compares the efficacy of these two surgical methods in terms of incision length, postoperative pain, surgical time, and hospital stay. Methods A retrospective evaluation was conducted from June 2022 to December 2024 at our hospital, including 167 patients with rib fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 86 receiving traditional ORIF (control group) and 81 undergoing the tunnel minimally invasive technique (observation group). Surgical outcomes, including incision length, surgical duration, pain scores (measured by the Visual Analogue Scale), and hospital stay, were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software, and results were considered significant with a P-value of < 0.05. Results The observation group demonstrated significantly shorter incision lengths (3.65 ± 1.08 cm vs. 9.10 ± 3.65 cm), lower postoperative pain scores (2.02 ± 0.93 vs. 3.52 ± 0.82), and shorter hospital stays (9.58 ± 2.68 days vs. 12.60 ± 3.33 days) compared to the control group (P < 0.001 for all). However, the surgical time was significantly longer for the tunnel technique (151.55 ± 39.81 min vs. 121.40 ± 29.37 min, P < 0.001). Conclusions The tunnel minimally invasive technique offers significant advantages over traditional ORIF, including smaller incisions, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays, despite a longer surgical duration. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cca936befae14281bfe6697d69d7d4ee |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2047-783X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-07-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | European Journal of Medical Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-cca936befae14281bfe6697d69d7d4ee2025-08-20T03:42:20ZengBMCEuropean Journal of Medical Research2047-783X2025-07-013011810.1186/s40001-025-02864-1Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fracturesDa-Wei Sun0Hui-Xia Zhai1Jun-Hua Zhi2Ke-Qin Chen3Xiao Pang4Meng Xu5Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital (Shenzhen Pingshan Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital)Abstract Background Rib fractures are often treated conservatively, but for cases with significant displacement or instability, surgical intervention may be necessary. Traditional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) has been the standard surgical approach; however, the tunnel minimally invasive technique is emerging as a less invasive alternative. This study compares the efficacy of these two surgical methods in terms of incision length, postoperative pain, surgical time, and hospital stay. Methods A retrospective evaluation was conducted from June 2022 to December 2024 at our hospital, including 167 patients with rib fractures. Patients were divided into two groups: 86 receiving traditional ORIF (control group) and 81 undergoing the tunnel minimally invasive technique (observation group). Surgical outcomes, including incision length, surgical duration, pain scores (measured by the Visual Analogue Scale), and hospital stay, were compared. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0 software, and results were considered significant with a P-value of < 0.05. Results The observation group demonstrated significantly shorter incision lengths (3.65 ± 1.08 cm vs. 9.10 ± 3.65 cm), lower postoperative pain scores (2.02 ± 0.93 vs. 3.52 ± 0.82), and shorter hospital stays (9.58 ± 2.68 days vs. 12.60 ± 3.33 days) compared to the control group (P < 0.001 for all). However, the surgical time was significantly longer for the tunnel technique (151.55 ± 39.81 min vs. 121.40 ± 29.37 min, P < 0.001). Conclusions The tunnel minimally invasive technique offers significant advantages over traditional ORIF, including smaller incisions, reduced postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays, despite a longer surgical duration. Further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm its long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-025-02864-1Rib fracturesTunnel minimally invasive techniqueOpen reduction and internal fixationSurgical outcomesPostoperative pain |
| spellingShingle | Da-Wei Sun Hui-Xia Zhai Jun-Hua Zhi Ke-Qin Chen Xiao Pang Meng Xu Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures European Journal of Medical Research Rib fractures Tunnel minimally invasive technique Open reduction and internal fixation Surgical outcomes Postoperative pain |
| title | Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| title_full | Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| title_fullStr | Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| title_short | Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| title_sort | comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures |
| topic | Rib fractures Tunnel minimally invasive technique Open reduction and internal fixation Surgical outcomes Postoperative pain |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-025-02864-1 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT daweisun comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures AT huixiazhai comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures AT junhuazhi comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures AT keqinchen comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures AT xiaopang comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures AT mengxu comparativeefficacyoftunnelminimallyinvasivetechniqueversustraditionalopenreductionandinternalfixationforribfractures |