BACKGROUND: Urgent non-invasive pelvic ring stabilisation (pelvic binding, PB) in shocked patients is recommended by state and institutional guidelines regardless of the fracture pattern. The purpose of this study was to determine the adherence to the guidelines, efficacy of the technique and identification of potential adverse effects associated with PB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 41-month retrospective analysis of the prospective pelvic fracture database was undertaken at a level 1 trauma centre. High-energy pelvic fractures were included in the analysis with exclusion of the A type injuries (AO/OTA classification) and patients who were dead on arrival. Collected data included patient demographics, injury severity score, fracture classification, application and timing of PB, associated injuries, physiological parameters, resuscitation fluids and outcomes. Pre and post-PB radiographs were reviewed. The potential effects of the PB on soft tissue (femoral vessel, bladder and rectal injury) complications were assessed by independent experts. RESULTS: 115 patients with high-energy B and C type pelvic ring injuries were included. Thirty-six (31%) patients presented in haemorrhagic shock on arrival. A total of 43 pelvic bindings were performed, 18 of them on shocked patients. The adherence to the guidelines was 50% (18/36) overall. Analysing fracture types of shocked patients the adherence was: B1 80%, B2 20%, B3 20%, C1 66%, C2 86%, C3 33%. The alignment of the pelvis was improved or perfect on post-PB radiographs in 68% and had not changed in 21%. In some cases of B2 and B3 type injuries the PB increased the deformity after application (11%). There were 10 deaths (8.7%) in the study group, with 4 deaths attributed to acute pelvic bleeding. Two of these had PB applied and two were identified as potential for improvement. One femoral artery injury, four bladder injuries and three rectum injuries were identified in patients who had PB applied. Association between the PB and these injuries is unlikely. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the guidelines should be improved with further education and system development. The good effect of the technique was evident on radiographs. Although in some lateral compression fracture patterns the deformity increased, no hazards were associated with the use of PB.
BACKGROUND: Urgent non-invasive pelvic ring stabilisation (pelvic binding, PB) in shocked patients is recommended by state and institutional guidelines regardless of the fracture pattern. The purpose of this study was to determine the adherence to the guidelines, efficacy of the technique and identification of potential adverse effects associated with PB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 41-month retrospective analysis of the prospective pelvic fracture database was undertaken at a level 1 trauma centre. High-energy pelvic fractures were included in the analysis with exclusion of the A type injuries (AO/OTA classification) and patients who were dead on arrival. Collected data included patient demographics, injury severity score, fracture classification, application and timing of PB, associated injuries, physiological parameters, resuscitation fluids and outcomes. Pre and post-PB radiographs were reviewed. The potential effects of the PB on soft tissue (femoral vessel, bladder and rectal injury) complications were assessed by independent experts. RESULTS: 115 patients with high-energy B and C type pelvic ring injuries were included. Thirty-six (31%) patients presented in haemorrhagic shock on arrival. A total of 43 pelvic bindings were performed, 18 of them on shocked patients. The adherence to the guidelines was 50% (18/36) overall. Analysing fracture types of shocked patients the adherence was: B1 80%, B2 20%, B3 20%, C1 66%, C2 86%, C3 33%. The alignment of the pelvis was improved or perfect on post-PB radiographs in 68% and had not changed in 21%. In some cases of B2 and B3 type injuries the PB increased the deformity after application (11%). There were 10 deaths (8.7%) in the study group, with 4 deaths attributed to acute pelvic bleeding. Two of these had PB applied and two were identified as potential for improvement. One femoral artery injury, four bladder injuries and three rectum injuries were identified in patients who had PB applied. Association between the PB and these injuries is unlikely. CONCLUSION: The adherence to the guidelines should be improved with further education and system development. The good effect of the technique was evident on radiographs. Although in some lateral compression fracture patterns the deformity increased, no hazards were associated with the use of PB.
Authors: David Dreizin; Uttam Bodanapally; Daniel Mascarenhas; Robert V O'Toole; Nikki Tirada; Ghada Issa; Jason Nascone Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rolf Rossaint; Bertil Bouillon; Vladimir Cerny; Timothy J Coats; Jacques Duranteau; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Daniela Filipescu; Beverley J Hunt; Radko Komadina; Giuseppe Nardi; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Yves Ozier; Louis Riddez; Arthur Schultz; Jean-Louis Vincent; Donat R Spahn Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: David Mejia; Michael W Parra; Carlos A Ordoñez; Natalia Padilla; Yaset Caicedo; Salin Pereira Warr; Paula Andrea Jurado-Muñoz; Mauricio Torres; Alfredo Martínez; José Julián Serna; Fernando Rodríguez-Holguín; Alexander Salcedo; Alberto García; Mauricio Millán; Luis Fernando Pino; Adolfo González Hadad; Mario Alain Herrera; Ernest E Moore Journal: Colomb Med (Cali) Date: 2020-12-30
Authors: Stephanie Jarvis; Kristin Salottolo; Richard Meinig; Chad Corrigan; Nimesh Patel; Matthew Carrick; Mark Lieser; Cassandra Reynolds; David Bar-Or Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2020-04-11