ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of surgical and traditional treatments for multiple rib fractures through systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsCNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, OVID, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Thieme and Springer Link database for information from inception to July 2019 were screened by computer. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of surgical and conventional methods for the treatment of multiple rib fractures were screened, assessed and extracted. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.ResultsTwelve studies were included, including 1 039 patients. There were 512 patients in the operation group and 527 patients in the traditional treatment group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was a significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of pneumonia (RR=0.41, 99%CI 0.29 to 0.58, P<0.000 01), incidence of atelectasis (RR=0.24, 99%CI 0.06 to 0.94, P=0.007), duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD=–2.64, 99%CI –4.38 to –0.91, P<0.000 1), duration of intensive care unit stay (SMD=–1.33, 99%CI –2.26 to –0.40, P=0.000 2), duration of hospital stay (SMD=–2.25, 99%CI –3.30 to –1.19, P<0.000 01)and incidence of chest wall deformity (RR=0.08, 99%CI 0.04 to 0.17, P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the hospital mortality (RR=0.75, 99%CI 0.23 to 2.46, P=0.53), incidence of tracheostomy (RR= 0.69, 99%CI 0.39 to 1.21, P=0.09), ventilator support rate (RR=0.65, 99%CI 0.41 to 1.05, P=0.02) and chest drainage time (SMD=–2.58, 99%CI –6.41 to 1.25, P=0.08).ConclusionSurgical treatment of multiple rib fractures can reduce pulmonary complications, shorten hospital stay, and reduce the incidence of chest wall deformity, which is conducive to rapid recovery and improves quality of life.
