Uwe Schweigkofler1, Bernd Wohlrath2, Heiko Trentzsch3, Konstantin Horas2, Reinhard Hoffmann2, Dennis Wincheringer2. 1. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. uwe.schweigkofler@bgu-frankfurt.de. 2. Department of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt, Friedberger Landstraße 430, 60389, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement, Klinikum Der Universität München, LMU München, Schillerstr 53, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Massive hemorrhage is a common cause of death in patients sustaining instable pelvic ring fractures. Pelvic binders have been propagated for rapid, non-invasive pelvic ring stabilization and control of severe pelvic hemorrhage. There is a recommendation to applicate a pelvic binder due to the trauma mechanism alone. However, there is little evidence to support this advice. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of an early pelvic binder application on transfusion requirements and hospital mortality. METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a study investigating clinical examination for pelvic stability. We included 64 patients who showed radiologically proven pelvic ring fracture (Tile type B or C). Study data were complemented by retrospective chart review to assess transfusion requirements. We used descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: 37 patients had a pelvic binder applied during prehospital treatment (pb), 27 received no binder (npb). Both showed no statistically significant difference in terms of injury severity or probability of survival. We found a trend towards higher ISS (29.7 vs. 24.4) and a lower probability of survival (RISC-II Prognosis 81% vs. 89%) in the pb group. Risk for massive transfusion according to TASH-Scores (10% vs. 6%), and average number of RPBC transfused (10.5 vs. 7.5) was higher in the pb group, without statistically significance. 20 patients (54%) in the pb group and 15 patients (55%) in the npb group showed a need of RPBC within the first 72 h. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (20% vs. 13.3%). CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify blood-saving effects with application of a pelvic binder to patients with instable pelvic ring fractures in terms of RPBC requirements. Nevertheless, some salutary effect of prehospital pb application may be assumed. Better studies are needed to elucidate the value of this intervention.
BACKGROUND: Massive hemorrhage is a common cause of death in patients sustaining instable pelvic ring fractures. Pelvic binders have been propagated for rapid, non-invasive pelvic ring stabilization and control of severe pelvic hemorrhage. There is a recommendation to applicate a pelvic binder due to the trauma mechanism alone. However, there is little evidence to support this advice. The aim of this study was to evaluate effects of an early pelvic binder application on transfusion requirements and hospital mortality. METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of a study investigating clinical examination for pelvic stability. We included 64 patients who showed radiologically proven pelvic ring fracture (Tile type B or C). Study data were complemented by retrospective chart review to assess transfusion requirements. We used descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: 37 patients had a pelvic binder applied during prehospital treatment (pb), 27 received no binder (npb). Both showed no statistically significant difference in terms of injury severity or probability of survival. We found a trend towards higher ISS (29.7 vs. 24.4) and a lower probability of survival (RISC-II Prognosis 81% vs. 89%) in the pb group. Risk for massive transfusion according to TASH-Scores (10% vs. 6%), and average number of RPBC transfused (10.5 vs. 7.5) was higher in the pb group, without statistically significance. 20 patients (54%) in the pb group and 15 patients (55%) in the npb group showed a need of RPBC within the first 72 h. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (20% vs. 13.3%). CONCLUSION: We were unable to identify blood-saving effects with application of a pelvic binder to patients with instable pelvic ring fractures in terms of RPBC requirements. Nevertheless, some salutary effect of prehospital pb application may be assumed. Better studies are needed to elucidate the value of this intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blunt trauma; Haemorrhage; Multiple trauma; Pelvic bleeding; Pelvic ring fracture; Prehospital emergency trauma care
Authors: Daniel C Cullinane; Henry J Schiller; Martin D Zielinski; Jaroslaw W Bilaniuk; Bryan R Collier; John Como; Michelle Holevar; Enrique A Sabater; S Andrew Sems; W Matthew Vassy; Julie L Wynne Journal: J Trauma Date: 2011-12
Authors: Gil Z Shlamovitz; William R Mower; Jonathan Bergman; Kenneth R Chuang; Jonathan Crisp; David Hardy; Martine Sargent; Sunil D Shroff; Eric Snyder; Marshall T Morgan Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-03