| Literature DB >> 28115984 |
Federico Coccolini1, Philip F Stahel2, Giulia Montori1, Walter Biffl3, Tal M Horer4, Fausto Catena5, Yoram Kluger6, Ernest E Moore7, Andrew B Peitzman8, Rao Ivatury9, Raul Coimbra10, Gustavo Pereira Fraga11, Bruno Pereira11, Sandro Rizoli12, Andrew Kirkpatrick13, Ari Leppaniemi14, Roberto Manfredi1, Stefano Magnone1, Osvaldo Chiara15, Leonardo Solaini1, Marco Ceresoli1, Niccolò Allievi1, Catherine Arvieux16, George Velmahos17, Zsolt Balogh18, Noel Naidoo19, Dieter Weber20, Fikri Abu-Zidan21, Massimo Sartelli22, Luca Ansaloni1.
Abstract
Complex pelvic injuries are among the most dangerous and deadly trauma related lesions. Different classification systems exist, some are based on the mechanism of injury, some on anatomic patterns and some are focusing on the resulting instability requiring operative fixation. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic impairment of pelvic ring function and the associated injuries. The management of pelvic trauma patients aims definitively to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology associated to the mechanical stability of the pelvic ring. Thus the management of pelvic trauma must be multidisciplinary and should be ultimately based on the physiology of the patient and the anatomy of the injury. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of pelvic trauma and the management Guidelines.Entities:
Keywords: ABO; Angiography; External fixation; Guidelines; Injury; Internal fixation; Management; Mechanic; Pelvic; Pelvic ring fractures; Preperitoneal pelvic packing; REBOA; Trauma; X-ray
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28115984 PMCID: PMC5241998 DOI: 10.1186/s13017-017-0117-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Emerg Surg ISSN: 1749-7922 Impact factor: 5.469
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram
GRADE system to evaluate the level of evidence and recommendation
| Grade of recommendation | Clarity of risk/benefit | Quality of supporting evidence | Implications |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | |||
| Strong recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
| 1B | |||
| Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect analyses or imprecise conclusions) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Strong recommendation, applies to most patients in most circumstances without reservation |
| 1C | |||
| Strong recommendation, low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Benefits clearly outweigh risk and burdens, or vice versa | Observational studies or case series | Strong recommendation but subject to change when higher quality evidence becomes available |
| 2A | |||
| Weak recommendation, high-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values |
| 2B | |||
| Weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence | Benefits closely balanced with risks and burden | RCTs with important limitations (inconsistent results, methodological flaws, indirect or imprecise) or exceptionally strong evidence from observational studies | Weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on the patient, treatment circumstances, or social values |
| 2C | |||
| Weak recommendation, Low-quality or very low-quality evidence | Uncertainty in the estimates of benefits, risks, and burden; benefits, risk, and burden may be closely balanced | Observational studies or case series | Very weak recommendation; alternative treatments may be equally reasonable and merit consideration |
WSES pelvic injuries classification (*: patients hemodynamically stable and mechanically unstable with no other lesions requiring treatment and with a negative CT-scan, can proceed directly to definitive mechanical stabilization. LC: Lateral Compression, APC: Antero-posterior Compression, VS: Vertical Shear, CM: Combined Mechanism, NOM: Non-Operative Management, OM: Operative Management, REBOA: Resuscitative Endo-Aortic Balloon)
| WSES grade | Young-Burgees classification | Haemodynamic | Mechanic | CT-scan | First-line Treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MINOR | WSES grade I | APC I – LC I | Stable | Stable | Yes | NOM |
| MODERATE | WSES grade II | LC II/III - | Stable | Unstable | Yes | Pelvic Binder in the field |
| WSES grade III | VS - CM | Stable | Unstable | Yes | Pelvic Binder in the field | |
| SEVERE | WSES grade IV | Any | Unstable | Any | No | Pelvic Binder in the field |
Fig. 2Young and Burgees classification for skeletal pelvic lesions
Fig. 3Pelvic Trauma management algorithm (*: patients hemodynamically stable and mechanically unstable with no other lesions requiring treatment and with a negative CT-scan, can proceed directly to definitive mechanical stabilization. MTP: Massive Transfusion Protocol, FAST-E: Eco-FAST Extended, ED: Emergency Department, CT: Computed Tomography, NOM: Non Operative Management, HEMODYNAMIC STABILITY is the condition in which the patient achieve a constant or an amelioration of blood pressure after fluids with a blood pressure >90 mmHg and heart rate <100 bpm; HEMODYNAMIC INSTABILITY is the condition in which the patient has an admission systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, or > 90 mmHg but requiring bolus infusions/transfusions and/or vasopressor drugs, or admission base deficit (BD) >6 mmol/l, or shock index > 1, or transfusion requirement of at least 4–6 Units of packed red blood cells within the first 24 h)