Randomized controlled trials affecting polytrauma care

Management of pelvic injuries in hemodynamically unstable polytrauma patients - Challenges and current updates

Pelvic injuries are notorious for causing rapid exsanguination, and also due to concomitant injuries and complications, they have a relatively higher mortality rate. Management of pelvic fractures in hemodynamically unstable patients is a challenging task and has been variably approached. Over the years, various concepts have evolved, and different guidelines and protocols were established in regional trauma care centers based mainly on their previous experience, outcomes, and availability of resources. More recently, damage control resuscitation, pelvic angioembolization, and acute definitive internal fixation are being employed in the management of these unstable injuries, without clear consensus or guidelines. In this background, we have performed a computerized search using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases on studies published over the past 30 years. This comprehensive review aims to consolidate available literature on the current epidemiology, diagnostics, resuscitation, and management options of pelvic fractures in polytraumatized patients with hemodynamic instability with particular focus on damage control resuscitation, pelvic angioembolization, and acute definitive internal fixation.

Are large fracture trials really possible? What we have learned from the randomized controlled damage control study?

PURPOSE

Although they are considered the 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials are still a rarity in orthopedic surgery. In the management of patients with multiple trauma, there is a current trend toward 'damage control orthopedics', but to date, there is no proof of the superiority of this concept in terms of evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this article is to present unexpected difficulties we encountered in successfully completing our randomized controlled trial and to discuss the problematic differences between theoretically planning a trial and real-life practical experience of implementing the plan, with attention to published strategies.

METHODS

The multicenter randomized controlled trial on risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients (DCO study) was designed to determine whether 'risk adapted damage control orthopedics' of femoral shaft fractures is advantageous when treating multiple trauma patients. We compared our methods of study planning and realization point by point with published methods for conducting such trials.

RESULTS

The study was methodically planned. We met the most prerequisites for successfully completing a large fracture trial, but experienced unexpected difficulties. After 2.5 years, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft suspended the financing because of low recruitment. The reasons were multifactorial.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe it is much more difficult to perform a large fracture trial in reality than to plan it in theory. Even the theoretically best designed trial can prove unsuccessful in its implementation. The question remains: are large fracture trials even possible? Hopefully YES!

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10321620. Date assigned: 09/02/2007.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.