Uwe Schweigkofler1, B Wohlrath2, H Trentsch3, J Greipel4, N Tamimi2, R Hoffmann2, D Wincheringer2. 1. Abt. für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. Uwe.schweigkofler@bgu-frankfurt.de. 2. Abt. für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement, Schillerstr 53, 80336, Munich, Germany. 4. Abt. für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Murnau, Prof. Küntscherstr.8, 82418, Murnau, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing for mechanical stability in pelvic ring fractures is advocated for the initial assessment and management of pelvic ring fractures. A survey among trauma surgeons showed that 91% agree with this recommendation. The aim of the present study was to describe the actual workup of patients with a high risk for unstable pelvic fractures in daily routine. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter observational study on patients admitted to the emergency room with suspected pelvic ring fractures. Data were collected anonymously via a standardized case report. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients with suspected pelvic injuries from 12 different trauma centers were included in this study. In 95 out of 254 cases a per definition unstable pelvic fracture could be confirmed; 46 type B and 49 type C fractures was confirmed. Mechanical stability examination was carried out in 61% and revealed a sensitivity of 31.6% and a specificity of 92.2%. 11.5% (18 patients) actually showed a mechanical instability (6 B# 12 C#). Regardless, 166 patients (65.4%) received noninvasive external stabilization ahead of diagnostic imaging, as a result of clinical judgment. 72% (24×) showed signs of significant bleeding in the subsequent CT scans. 33 pelvic ring fractures (type B or C) had no prehospital stabilization. CONCLUSION: Testing of mechanical stability of the pelvic ring was carried out less often and with lower consequences for the actual management than expected. It seems worthwhile to rather put on a pelvic binder at earliest occasion based on trauma mechanism or clinical findings to reduce the risk of serious pelvic bleeding.
BACKGROUND: Testing for mechanical stability in pelvic ring fractures is advocated for the initial assessment and management of pelvic ring fractures. A survey among trauma surgeons showed that 91% agree with this recommendation. The aim of the present study was to describe the actual workup of patients with a high risk for unstable pelvic fractures in daily routine. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter observational study on patients admitted to the emergency room with suspected pelvic ring fractures. Data were collected anonymously via a standardized case report. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients with suspected pelvic injuries from 12 different trauma centers were included in this study. In 95 out of 254 cases a per definition unstable pelvic fracture could be confirmed; 46 type B and 49 type C fractures was confirmed. Mechanical stability examination was carried out in 61% and revealed a sensitivity of 31.6% and a specificity of 92.2%. 11.5% (18 patients) actually showed a mechanical instability (6 B# 12 C#). Regardless, 166 patients (65.4%) received noninvasive external stabilization ahead of diagnostic imaging, as a result of clinical judgment. 72% (24×) showed signs of significant bleeding in the subsequent CT scans. 33 pelvic ring fractures (type B or C) had no prehospital stabilization. CONCLUSION: Testing of mechanical stability of the pelvic ring was carried out less often and with lower consequences for the actual management than expected. It seems worthwhile to rather put on a pelvic binder at earliest occasion based on trauma mechanism or clinical findings to reduce the risk of serious pelvic bleeding.
Entities:
Keywords:
Emergency room treatment; Pelvic binder; Pelvic ring fracture; Pelvic ring stabilization; Prehospital management
Authors: Willem R Spanjersberg; Simon P Knops; Niels W L Schep; Esther M M van Lieshout; Peter Patka; Inger B Schipper Journal: Injury Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Adam J Starr; Damian R Griffin; Charles M Reinert; William H Frawley; Joan Walker; Shelley N Whitlock; Drake S Borer; Ashutosh V Rao; Alan L Jones Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: T Pohlemann; H Tscherne; F Baumgärtel; H J Egbers; E Euler; F Maurer; M Fell; E Mayr; W W Quirini; W Schlickewei; A Weinberg Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 1.000
Authors: Markus A Küper; Robert Bachmann; Götz F Wenig; Patrick Ziegler; Alexander Trulson; Inga M Trulson; Christian Minarski; Ruth Ladurner; Ulrich Stöckle; Andreas Höch; Steven C Herath; Fabian M Stuby Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Luis Navas; Natalie Mengis; Alexander Zimmerer; Jules-Nikolaus Rippke; Sebastian Schmidt; Alexander Brunner; Moritz Wagner; Andreas Höch; Tina Histing; Steven C Herath; Markus A Küper; Benjamin Ulmar Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-03-15 Impact factor: 2.362