Comparative efficacy of tunnel minimally invasive technique versus traditional open reduction and internal fixation for rib fractures.

backgroundRib 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.

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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).

conclusionsThe 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.