Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Sternotomy closure using rigid plate fixation: a paradigm shift from wire cerclage.

MedStar author(s):

Citation: Annals of Cardiothoracic Surgery. 7(5):611-620, 2018 Sep.PMID: 30505745Institution: MedStar Heart & Vascular InstituteForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: IN PROCESS -- NOT YET INDEXEDYear: 2018 ISSN:

2225-319X

Name of journal: Annals of cardiothoracic surgeryAbstract: Background: Rigid plate fixation (RPF) is the cornerstone in managing fractures and osteotomies except for sternotomy, where most cardiac surgeons continue to use wire cerclage (WC). Results of a multicenter randomized trial evaluating sternal healing, sternal complications, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and costs after sternotomy closure with RPF or WC are summarized here.Conclusions: Sternotomy closure with RPF resulted in significantly better sternal healing, fewer sternal complications, improved PROMs and was cost neutral through 90 days and 6 months compared to WC.Methods: Twelve US centers randomized 236 patients to either RPF (n=116) or WC (n=120). The primary endpoint, sternal healing at 6 months, was evaluated by a core laboratory using computed tomography and a validated 6-point scale (greater scores represent greater healing). Secondary endpoints assessed through 6 months included sternal complications and PROMs. Costs from the time of sternal closure through 90 days and 6 months were analyzed by a health economic core laboratory.Results: RPF compared to WC resulted in better sternal healing scores at 3 (2.6+/-1.1 vs. 1.8+/-1.0; P<0.0001) and 6 months (3.8+/-1.0 vs. 3.3+/-1.1; P=0.0007) and higher sternal union rates at 3 [41% (42/103) vs. 16% (16/102); P<0.0001] and 6 months [80% (81/101) vs. 67% (67/100); P=0.03]. There were fewer sternal complications with RPF through 6 months [0% (0/116) vs. 5% (6/120); P=0.03] and a trend towards fewer sternal wound infections [0% (0/116) vs. 4.2% (5/120); P=0.06]. All PROMs including sternal pain, upper extremity function (UEF), and quality-of-life scores were numerically better in RPF patients compared to WC patients at all follow-up time points. Although RPF was associated with a trend toward higher index hospitalization costs, a trend towards lower follow-up costs resulted in total costs that were All authors: Allen KB, Bonnell M, Gerdisch M, Grehan J, Grubb KJ, Guy TS, Icke KJ, Landolfo K, Naka Y, Patel N, Thourani VHFiscal year: FY2019Digital Object Identifier:

https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/acs.2018.06.01

Date added to catalog: 2018-12-14

Holdings ( 1 )
Title notes ( 5 )

Holdings
Item type	Current library	Collection	Call number	Status	Date due	Barcode
Journal Article	MedStar Authors Catalog	Article	30505745	Available		30505745

Background: Rigid plate fixation (RPF) is the cornerstone in managing fractures and osteotomies except for sternotomy, where most cardiac surgeons continue to use wire cerclage (WC). Results of a multicenter randomized trial evaluating sternal healing, sternal complications, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), and costs after sternotomy closure with RPF or WC are summarized here.

Conclusions: Sternotomy closure with RPF resulted in significantly better sternal healing, fewer sternal complications, improved PROMs and was cost neutral through 90 days and 6 months compared to WC.

Methods: Twelve US centers randomized 236 patients to either RPF (n=116) or WC (n=120). The primary endpoint, sternal healing at 6 months, was evaluated by a core laboratory using computed tomography and a validated 6-point scale (greater scores represent greater healing). Secondary endpoints assessed through 6 months included sternal complications and PROMs. Costs from the time of sternal closure through 90 days and 6 months were analyzed by a health economic core laboratory.

Results: RPF compared to WC resulted in better sternal healing scores at 3 (2.6+/-1.1 vs. 1.8+/-1.0; P<0.0001) and 6 months (3.8+/-1.0 vs. 3.3+/-1.1; P=0.0007) and higher sternal union rates at 3 [41% (42/103) vs. 16% (16/102); P<0.0001] and 6 months [80% (81/101) vs. 67% (67/100); P=0.03]. There were fewer sternal complications with RPF through 6 months [0% (0/116) vs. 5% (6/120); P=0.03] and a trend towards fewer sternal wound infections [0% (0/116) vs. 4.2% (5/120); P=0.06]. All PROMs including sternal pain, upper extremity function (UEF), and quality-of-life scores were numerically better in RPF patients compared to WC patients at all follow-up time points. Although RPF was associated with a trend toward higher index hospitalization costs, a trend towards lower follow-up costs resulted in total costs that were ,888 less at 90 days in RPF patients compared to WC patients (95% CI: - ,889 to ,273; P=0.52) and ,646 less at 6 months (95% CI: - ,127 to ,706; P=0.61).

English