The Reliability of the Pre-hospital Physical Examination of the Pelvis: A Retrospective, Multicenter Study

ESTES recommendations for the treatment of polytrauma-a European consensus based on the German S3 guidelines for the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries

INTRODUCTION

Considerable heterogeneity exists in the configuration and implementation maturity of trauma systems across European healthcare settings, and the opportunities for guideline-informed high-quality care varies considerably. Therefore, the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES), with its constituent national societies, has developed comprehensive consensus recommendations for care-context appropriate treatment of polytrauma patients in Europe, from the pre-hospital setting to the first surgical phase.

METHODS

Adhering to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM), ESTES conducted a three-round modified Delphi consensus. National society expert delegates assessed Grade of Recommendation (GoR) A and Good Clinical Practice Points (GPP) elements of the German Society of Trauma Surgery (DGU) "S3 guidelines for polytrauma/severe injury management" for appropriateness and implementability within their respective healthcare systems.

RESULTS

In the first consensus round, 82 GoR A and 57 GPP recommendations were analysed. Of these, seven GPP were rephrased for clarity and four were removed due to redundancy or conflicting content. Consequently, 135 recommendations (82 GoR A and 53 GPP) remained, with 128 (77 GoR A and 51 GPP) deemed appropriate and necessary, and seven as uncertain due to expert disagreement.

CONCLUSION

These ESTES recommendations constitute the first cohesive Europe-wide framework for managing the polytrauma patient from the prehospital setting to the end of the first surgical phase. They serve as a foundational tool for the development of national guidelines, particularly in regions with evolving trauma systems, and promote alignment towards a uniform standard-of-care across Europe.

Stop the bleed " - Prehospital bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries - A systematic review and clinical practice guideline - A systematic review and clinical practice guideline

PURPOSE

Our aim was to develop new evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries in the prehospital setting. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched until June 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for bleeding control in the prehospital setting using manual pressure, haemostatic agents, tourniquets, pelvic stabilisation, or traction splints in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality and bleeding control. Transfusion requirements and haemodynamic stability were surrogate outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. Interventions covered were pelvic binders (n = 4 studies), pressure dressings (n = 1), tourniquets (n = 6), traction splints (n = 1), haemostatic agents (n = 3), and nasal balloon catheters (n = 1). Fourteen new recommendations were developed. All achieved strong consensus.

CONCLUSION

Bleeding control is the basic objective of treatment. This can be easily justified based on empirical evidence. There is, however, a lack of reliable and high-quality studies that assess and compare methods for bleeding control in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries. The guideline provides reasonable and practical recommendations (although mostly with a low grade of recommendation) and also reveals several open research questions that can hopefully be answered when the guideline is revised again.

Accuracy between prehospital and hospital diagnosis in helicopter emergency medical services and its consequences for trauma care

PURPOSE

For optimal prehospital trauma care, it is essential to adequately recognize potential life-threatening injuries in order to correctly triage patients and to initiate life-saving measures. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of prehospital diagnoses suspected by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS).

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included patients from the Swiss Trauma Registry with ISS ≥ 16 or AIS head ≥ 3 transported by Switzerland's largest HEMS and subsequently admitted to one of twelve Swiss trauma centers from 01/2020 to 12/2020. The primary outcome was the comparison of injuries suspected prehospital with the final diagnoses obtained at the hospital using the abbreviated injury scale (AIS) per body region. As secondary outcomes, prehospital interventions were compared to corresponding relevant diagnoses.

RESULTS

Relevant head trauma was the most commonly injured body region and was identified in 96.3% (95% CI: 92.1%; 98.6%) of the cases prehospital. Relevant injuries to the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were also common but less often identified prehospital [62.7% (95% CI: 54.2%; 70.6%), 45.5% (95% CI: 30.4%; 61.2%), and 61.5% (95% CI: 44.6%; 76.6%)]. Overall, 7 of 95 (7.4%) patients with pneumothorax received a chest decompression and in 22 of 39 (56.4%) patients with an instable pelvic fracture a pelvic binder was applied prehospital.

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of severe chest, abdominal, and pelvic diagnoses made in hospital went undetected in the challenging prehospital environment. This underlines the difficult circumstances faced by the rescue teams. Potentially life-saving interventions such as prehospital chest decompression and increased use of a pelvic binder were identified as potential improvements to prehospital care.

Imposter or knight in shining armor? Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) for severe pelvic injuries in patients with multiple trauma: a trauma-registry analysis

BACKGROUND

Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices (PCCD) are standard in hemorrhage-control of unstable pelvic ring fractures (UPF). Controversial data on their usefulness exists. Aim of the study was to investigate whether prehospital application of PCCD can reduce mortality and transfusion requirements in UPF.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study. From 2016 until 2021, 63,371 adult severely injured patients were included into TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Trauma Society (TR-DGU). We analyzed PCCD use over time and compared patients with multiple trauma patients and UPF, who received prehospital PCCD to those who did not (noPCCD). Groups were adjusted for risk of prehospital PCCD application by propensity score matching. Primary endpoints were hospital mortality, standardized mortality rate (SMR) and transfusion requirements.

RESULTS

Overall UPF incidence was 9% (N = 5880) and PCCD use increased over time (7.5% to 20.4%). Of all cases with UPF, 40.2% received PCCD and of all cases with PCCD application, 61% had no pelvic injury at all. PCCD patients were more severely injured and had higher rates of shock or transfusion. 24-h.-mortality and hospital mortality were higher with PCCD (10.9% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.033; 17.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.070). Hospital mortality with PCCD was 1% lower than predicted. SMR was in favor of PCCD but failed statistical significance (0.95 vs. 1.04, p = 0.101). 1,860 propensity score matched pairs were analyzed: NoPCCD-patients received more often catecholamines (19.6% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.043) but required less surgical pelvic stabilization in the emergency room (28.6% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality or transfusion requirements.

CONCLUSION

We observed PCCD overuse in general and underuse in UPF. Prehospital PCCD appears to be more a marker of injury severity and less triggered by presence of UPF. We found no salutary effect on survival or transfusion requirements. Inappropriate indication and technical flaw may have biased our results. TR-DGU does not contain data on these aspects. Further studies are necessary. Modular add-on questioners to the registry could offer one possible solution to overcome this limitation. We are concerned that PCCD use may be unfairly discredited by misinterpretation of the available evidence and strongly vote for a prospective trial.

Performance Assessment of Out-of-Hospital Use of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices for Severely Injured Patients in Switzerland: A Nationwide Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe pelvic fractures carry a greater risk of severe bleeding, and pelvic compression devices (PCCD) are used to stabilize the pelvis on the pre-hospital scene. The aim of this study was to describe the use of PCCD in the pre-hospital setting on a nationwide scale (Switzerland) and determine the sensitivity, specificity and rates of over- and under-triage of the current application practices. The secondary objective was to identify pre-hospital factors associated with unstable pelvic fractures.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study using anonymized patient data (1 January 2015-31 December 2020) from the Swiss Trauma Registry (STR). Based on AIS scores, patients were assigned a unique principal diagnosis among three categories (unstable pelvic fracture-stable pelvic fracture-other) and assessed for use or not of PCCD. Secondarily, patient characteristics, initial pre-hospital vital signs, means of pre-hospital transport and trauma mechanism were also extracted from the database.

RESULTS

2790 patients were included for analysis. A PCCD was used in 387 (13.9%) patients. In the PCCD group, 176 (45.5%) had an unstable pelvic fracture, 52 (13.4%) a stable pelvic fracture and 159 (41.1%) an injury unrelated to the pelvic region. In the group who did not receive a PCCD, 214 (8.9%) had an unstable pelvic fracture, 182 (7.6%) a stable pelvic fracture and 2007 (83.5%) an injury unrelated to the pelvic region. The nationwide sensitivity of PCCD application was 45.1% (95% CI 40.1-50.2), the specificity 91.2% (95% CI 90-92.3), with both over- and under-triage rates of 55%. The prevalence of unstable fractures in our population was 14% (390/2790). We identified female sex, younger age, lower systolic blood pressure, higher shock index, pedestrian hit and fall ≥3 m as possible risk factors for an unstable pelvic fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a nationwide both over- and under-triage rate of 55% for out-of-hospital PCCD application. Female gender, younger age, lower blood pressure, higher shock index, pedestrian hit and fall >3 m are possible risk factors for unstable pelvic fracture, but it remains unclear if those parameters are relevant clinically to perform pre-hospital triage.

Prehospital accuracy of (H)EMS pelvic ring injury assessment and the application of non-invasive pelvic binder devices

BACKGROUND

Pre-hospital application of a non-invasive pelvic binder device (NIPBD) is essential to increase chances of survival by limiting blood loss in patients with an unstable pelvic ring injury. However, unstable pelvic ring injuries are often not recognized during prehospital assessment. We investigated the prehospital (helicopter) emergency medical services ((H)EMS)' accuracy of the assessment of unstable pelvic ring injuries and NIPBD application rate.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study on all patients with a pelvic injury transported by (H)EMS to our level one trauma centre between 2012 and 2020. Pelvic ring injuries were included and radiographically categorized using the Young & Burgess classification system. Lateral Compression (LC) type II/III -, Anterior-Posterior (AP) type II/III - and Vertical Shear (VS) injuries were considered as unstable pelvic ring injuries. (H)EMS charts and in-hospital patient records were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the prehospital assessment of unstable pelvic ring injuries and prehospital NIPBD application.

RESULTS

A total of 634 patients with pelvic injuries were identified, of whom 392 (61.8%) had pelvic ring injuries and 143 (22.6%) had unstable pelvic ring injuries. (H)EMS personnel suspected a pelvic injury in 30.6% of the pelvic ring injuries and in 46.9% of the unstable pelvic ring injuries. An NIPBD was applied in 108 (27.6%) of the patients with a pelvic ring injury and in 63 (44.1%) of the patients with an unstable pelvic ring injury. (H)EMS prehospital diagnostic accuracy measured in pelvic ring injuries alone was 67.1% for identifying unstable pelvic ring injuries from stable pelvic ring injuries and 68.1% for NIPBD application.

CONCLUSION

The (H)EMS prehospital sensitivity of unstable pelvic ring injury assessment and NIPBD application rate is low. (H)EMS did not suspect an unstable pelvic injury nor applied an NIPBD in roughly half of all unstable pelvic ring injuries. We advise future research on decision tools to aid the routine use of an NIPBD in any patient with a relevant mechanism of injury.

Are Pelvic Binders an Effective Prehospital Intervention?

OBJECTIVE

Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality.

RESULTS

EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index (p = 0.005), longer prehospital duration (p = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.

Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for detecting pelvic fractures among blunt trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pelvic fractures are common among blunt trauma patients, and timely and accurate diagnosis can improve patient outcomes. However, it remains unclear whether physical examinations are sufficient in this context. This study aims to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of physical examination for pelvic fracture among blunt trauma patients.

METHODS

Studies were identified using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases starting from the creation of the database to January 2020. A total of 20 studies (49,043 patients with 8300 cases [16.9%] of pelvic fracture) were included in the quality assessment and meta-analysis. Two investigators extracted the data and evaluated the risk of bias in each study. The meta-analysis involved a hierarchical summary receiver operating curve (ROC) model to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of the physical exam. Subgroup analysis assessed the extent of between-study heterogeneity. Clinical utility was assessed using decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

The median prevalence of pelvic fracture was 10.5% (interquartile range, 5.1-16.5). The pooled sensitivity (and corresponding 95% confidence interval) of the hierarchical summary ROC parameters was 0.859 (0.761-0.952) at a given specificity of 0.920, which was the median value among the included studies. Subgroup analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity among patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥ 13 was 0.933 (0.847-0.998) at a given specificity of 0.920. The corresponding value for patients with scores ≤ 13 was 0.761 (0.560-0.932). For threshold probability < 0.01 with 10-15% prevalence, the net benefit of imaging tests was higher than that of physical examination.

CONCLUSION

Imaging tests should be performed in all trauma patients regardless of findings from physical examination or patients' levels of consciousness. However, the clinical role of physical examination should be considered given the prevalence and threshold probability in each setting.

Pelvic Ring Fracture During a Professional Surfing Event at the Banzai Pipeline

We present a case of a 32-y-old male professional surfer who sustained an isolated pelvic ring fracture after wiping out on a large wave and striking the ocean floor during a world championship tour surfing competition in Hawaii. The surfer was rescued by the water patrol lifeguards, evaluated by onsite medical staff, and stabilized for transfer and subsequent surgical management. As surfing and surfing competitions become increasingly popular, medical staff and event organizers must be aware of the possibility for severe, life-threatening injuries during surfing events. Although infrequent, staff must be prepared to manage these injuries, including immediate resuscitation, stabilization, analgesia, and transfer to definitive care. We hope this case encourages not only surf event organizers and medical staff, but also staff of all professional and recreational water sports, to increase their preparedness to stabilize and treat both life-threatening and minor injuries. Expeditious and appropriate treatment of an injured athlete has the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality while maximizing the athletes' functional outcome after injury.

Prehospital triage for mass casualty incidents using the META method for early surgical assessment: retrospective validation of a hospital trauma registry

BACKGROUND

In mass casualty incidents (MCI), death usually occurs within the first few hours and thus early transfer to a trauma centre can be crucial in selected cases. However, most triage systems designed to prioritize the transfer to hospital of these patients do not assess the need for surgery, in part due to inconclusive evidence regarding the value of such an assessment. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the capacity of a new triage system-the Prehospital Advanced Triage Method (META)-to identify victims who could benefit from urgent surgical assessment in case of MCI.

METHODS

Retrospective, descriptive, observational study of a multipurpose cohort of patients included in the severe trauma registry of the Gregorio Marañón University General Hospital (Spain) between June 1993 and December 2011. All data were prospectively evaluated. All patients were evaluated with the META system to determine whether they met the criteria for urgent transfer. The META defines patients in need of urgent surgical assessment: (a) All penetrating injuries to head, neck, torso and extremities proximal to elbow or knee, (b) Open pelvic fracture, (c) Closed pelvic fracture with mechanical or haemodynamic instability and (d) Blunt torso trauma with haemodynamic instability. Patients who fulfilled these criteria were designated as "Urgent Evacuation for Surgical Assessment" (UESA) cases; all other cases were designated as non-UESA. The following variables were assessed: patient status at the scene; severity scales [RTS, Shock index, MGAP (Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, pressure), GCS]; need for surgery and/or interventional procedure to control bleeding (UESA); and mortality. The two groups (UESA vs. non-UESA) were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 1882 cases from the database were included in the study. Mean age was 39.2 years and most (77%) patients were male. UESA patients presented significantly worse on-scene hemodynamic parameters (systolic blood pressure and heart rate) and greater injury severity (RTS, shock index, and MGAP scales). No differences were observed for respiratory rate, need for orotracheal intubation, or GCS scores. The anatomical injuries of patients in the UESA group were less severe but these patients had a greater need for urgent surgery and higher mortality rates.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that the META triage classification system could be beneficial to help identify patients with severe trauma and/or in need of urgent surgical assessment at the scene of injury in case of MCI. These findings demonstrate that, in this cohort, the META fulfils the purpose for which it was designed.

Pelvic trauma mortality reduced by integrated trauma care

OBJECTIVES

A multidisciplinary approach that emphasised improved triage, early pelvic binder application, early administration of blood and blood products, adherence to algorithmic pathways, screening with focused sonography (FAST), early computed tomography scanning with contrast angiography, angio-embolisation and early operative intervention by specialist pelvic surgeons was implemented in the last decade to improve outcomes after pelvic trauma. The manuscript evaluated the effect of this multi-faceted change over a 12-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted comparing patients presenting with serious pelvic injury in 2002 to those presenting in 2013. The primary exposure and comparator variables were the year of presentation and the primary outcome variable was mortality at hospital discharge. Potential confounders were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

There were 1213 patients with a serious pelvic injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3), increasing from 51 in 2002 to 156 in 2013. Demographics, injury severity and presenting clinical characteristics were similar between the two time periods. There was a statistically significant difference in mortality from 20% in 2002 to 7.7% in 2013 (P = 0.02). The association between the primary exposure variable of being injured in 2013 and mortality remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.60) when adjusted for potential clinically important confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Multi-faceted interventions directed at the spectrum of trauma resuscitation from pre-hospital care to definitive surgical management were associated with significant reduction in mortality of patients with severe pelvic injury from 2002 to 2013. This demonstrates the effectiveness of an integrated, inclusive trauma system in achieving improved outcomes.