OBJECTIVE: To determine if physical examination (PE) of the posterior pelvis in awake and alert trauma patients with known pelvic ring injuries can accurately predict a potentially unstable posterior ring injury and guide the use of computed tomography (CT) more effectively. DESIGN: Patients with pelvic fracture noted on anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs were prospectively evaluated over a 21-month period. AP, inlet, and outlet radiographs as well as CT scans were obtained on all patients. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Patients were excluded who had a Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12, were unable to cooperate with a PE, were 12 years old or younger, or had concomitant acetabular fracture. INTERVENTION: A focused PE protocol with emphasis on the posterior pelvis, including posterior palpation of the sacrum and sacroiliac joint, AP and lateral iliac wing compression, active hip range of motion, and a digital rectal examination. If an individual PE parameter resulted in tenderness, it was considered positive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The 4 PE modalities were compared with CT scan results using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, likelihood ratio, and McNemar's test for discordant pairs. RESULTS: The study group included 66 patients. Of patients, 49 (74%) had posterior pelvic injury diagnosed by CT scan. Of the patients with positive posterior CT scan findings, 48 (98%) had pain with posterior palpation. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.94, and the likelihood ratio was 16.3. CONCLUSIONS: PE, specifically palpation of the posterior pelvis, in patients with pelvic fractures can accurately detect injuries of the posterior ring.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if physical examination (PE) of the posterior pelvis in awake and alert traumapatients with known pelvic ring injuries can accurately predict a potentially unstable posterior ring injury and guide the use of computed tomography (CT) more effectively. DESIGN:Patients with pelvic fracture noted on anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiographs were prospectively evaluated over a 21-month period. AP, inlet, and outlet radiographs as well as CT scans were obtained on all patients. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Patients were excluded who had a Glasgow Coma Scale score less than or equal to 12, were unable to cooperate with a PE, were 12 years old or younger, or had concomitant acetabular fracture. INTERVENTION: A focused PE protocol with emphasis on the posterior pelvis, including posterior palpation of the sacrum and sacroiliac joint, AP and lateral iliac wing compression, active hip range of motion, and a digital rectal examination. If an individual PE parameter resulted in tenderness, it was considered positive. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The 4 PE modalities were compared with CT scan results using sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, likelihood ratio, and McNemar's test for discordant pairs. RESULTS: The study group included 66 patients. Of patients, 49 (74%) had posterior pelvic injury diagnosed by CT scan. Of the patients with positive posterior CT scan findings, 48 (98%) had pain with posterior palpation. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.98 and 0.94, and the likelihood ratio was 16.3. CONCLUSIONS: PE, specifically palpation of the posterior pelvis, in patients with pelvic fractures can accurately detect injuries of the posterior ring.
Authors: T A W den Boer; M Geurts; L T van Hulsteijn; A Mubarak; J Slingerland; B Zwart; G J M G van der Heijden; T J Blokhuis Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2011-01-26 Impact factor: 3.693