Table 5.

Treatment methods and outcomes^a

Sternal fractures	Overall n = 98		Sternum CONS Spine CONS n = 43		Sternum CONS Spine OP n = 41		Sternum OP Spine CONS n = 7		Sternum OP Spine OP n = 7		p value
Primary sternal treatment, n (%)
Conservative	84	(86)
Operative	14	(14)
Sternal treatment failure, n (%)	5	(5)	3	(7)	2	(5)	0		0		1.000
Secondary operation	2	(2)	1	(2)	1	(2)
Surgical indication	1	(1)	0		1	(2)
Unknown treatment outcome	2	(2)	2	(5)	0
Spinal fractures
Primary spinal treatment, n (%)
Conservative	50	(51)
Operative	48	(49)
Conservative treatment method, n (%)
Haloframe	7	(14)	6	(14)			1	(17)
Other	42	(86)	37	(86)			5	(83)
Spinal treatment failure, n (%)
Overallb	11	(11)	5	(12)	6	(15)	0		0		0.786
Biomechanical failure	8	(8)	5	(12)	3	(7)	0		0		0.921
Reoperation	2	(2)			2	(5)			0
Secondary operation	4	(4)	3	(7)	1	(2) f	0
Treatment refusal	2	(2)	2	(5)	0
Other treatment outcomes
Pneumonia, n (%)c	29	(30)	14	(33)	15	(37)	0		0		0.068
Wound infection, n (%) c,d	6	(10)	1	(2)	5	(12)	0		0		0.602
Hospital LOS in days, median [IQR]e	17	[8–24]	12	[5–25]	17	[8–23]	24	[17–24]	24	[24–24]	0.072

CONS conservative treatment, OP operative treatment, LOS length of stay, IQR interquartile range

^*Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05)

^aDue to rounding off, percentages might not add up to 100%

^bOverall treatment failure included technical failure (malpositioned screws and pain due to osteosynthesis materials)

^cOnly reported by Klei et al. [24]

^dWound infection in conservative treatment group was caused by a haloframe pintract infection

^eNot reported by Labbe et al. [10], Regauer et al. [26], and Jiang et al. [11]

^fThis patient was included in the operative spinal treatment group due to his thoracic fracture, but secondary dislocation of a conservatively treated odontoid fracture occurred