Identifying risk factors for suboptimal pelvic binder placement in major trauma

Identification and Management of Pelvic Fractures in Prehospital and Emergency Department Settings

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to describe the characteristics of patients with a pelvic fracture treated at a level 1 trauma center, the proportion of prehospital undertriage and the use of pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Prehospital and inhospital medical records of adults (≥16 y old) with a pelvic fracture who were treated at Hopital de l'Enfant-Jesus-CHU de Québec (Quebec City, Canada), a university-affiliated level 1 trauma center, between September 01, 2017 and September 01, 2021 were reviewed. Isolated hip or pubic ramus fracture were excluded. Data are presented using proportions and means with standard deviations.

RESULTS

A total of 228 patients were included (males: 62.3%; mean age: 54.6 [standard deviation 21.1]). Motor vehicle collision (47.4%) was the main mechanism of injury followed by high-level fall (21.5%). Approximately a third (34.2%) needed at least one blood transfusion. Compared to those admitted directly, transferred patients were more likely to be male (73.0% versus 51.3%, P < 0.001) and to have a surgical procedure performed at the trauma center (71.3% versus 46.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of prehospital undertriage was 22.6%. Overall, 17.1% had an open-book fracture and would have potentially benefited from a prehospital PCCD. Forty-six transferred patients had a PCCD applied at the referral hospital of which 26.1% needed adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic fractures are challenging to identify in the prehospital environment and are associated with a high undertriage of 22.6%. Reducing undertriage and optimizing the use of PCCD are key opportunities to improve care of patients with a pelvic fracture.

Pre-hospital emergency medicine: a spectrum of imaging findings

The goal of emergency medical services (EMS) is to provide urgent medical care and stabilization prior to patient transport to a healthcare facility for definitive treatment. The number and variety of interventions performed in the field by EMS providers continues to grow as early management of severe injuries and critical illness in the pre-hospital setting has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The sequela of many field interventions, including those associated with airway management, emergent vascular access, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), patient immobilization, and hemorrhage control may be appreciated on emergency department admission imaging. Attention to these imaging findings is important for the emergency radiologist, who may be the first to identify a malpositioned device or an iatrogenic complication arising from pre-hospital treatment. Recognition of these findings may allow for earlier corrective action to be taken in the acute care setting. This review describes common EMS interventions and their imaging findings.

Management of Pelvic Trauma

Pelvic fractures are common after blunt trauma with patients' presentation ranging from stable with insignificant fractures to life-threatening exsanguination from unstable fractures. Often, hemorrhagic shock from a pelvic fracture may go unrecognized and high clinical suspicion for a pelvic source lies with the clinician. A multidisciplinary coordinated effort is required for management of these complex patients. In the exsanguinating patient, hemorrhage control remains the top priority and may be achieved with external stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, preperitoneal pelvic packing, angiographic intervention, or a combination of therapies. These modalities have been shown to reduce mortality in this challenging population.

Does a prehospital applied pelvic binder improve patient survival?

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic fractures are serious and oftentimes require immediate medical attention. Pelvic binders have become a critical tool in the management of pelvic injuries, especially in the prehospital setting. Proper application of the pelvic binder is essential to achieve the desired result. This study evaluates the effectiveness of prehospitally applied pelvic binders in improving outcomes for patients with pelvic fractures.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 66 patients with unstable pelvic ring fracture classified as AO61B or 61C, who were treated at a Level I hospital in the emergency room between January 2014 and December 2018. The ideal position for a pelvic binder was determined, and patients were divided into three sub-groups based on whether they received a pelvic binder in the ideal position, outside the optimal range, or not at all. The primary outcome measure was the survival rate of the patients.

RESULTS

66 trauma patients with unstable pelvic fractures were enrolled, with a mean age of 53.8 years, who presented to our ER between 2014 and 2018. The mean ISS score was 21.9, with 60.3 % of patients having a moderate to severe injury (ISS > 16 points). Pelvic binder usage did not differ significantly between patients with an ISS < or ≥ 16 points. A total of 9 patients (13.6 %) died during hospitalization, with a mean survival time of 8.1 days. The survival rate did not differ significantly between patients with or without a pelvic binder, or between those with an ideally placed pelvic binder versus those with a binder outside the ideal range. The ISS score, heart rate, blood pressure at admission, and hemoglobin level were significantly different between the group of patients who died and those who survived, indicating their importance in predicting outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Our study found that prehospital pelvic binders did not significantly impact patient outcomes for unstable pelvic fractures, with injury severity score (ISS) being the strongest predictor of survival. Assessing injury severity and managing blood loss remain crucial for these patients. While pelvic binders may not impact survival significantly, they still play a role in stabilizing pelvic fractures and managing blood loss.

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.

Predictive Factors for the Application of Pelvic Binders in the Prehospital Setting

OBJECTIVES

Early pelvic binder placement in the field stabilizes pelvic fractures and tamponades potential hemorrhage within the pelvis. Despite known risk factors for pelvic fracture, it remains challenging to quickly triage and correctly apply a pelvic binder. We aim to develop a prediction model that exclusively uses prehospital criteria to inform the decision to place a pelvic binder.

METHODS

The trauma registry was used to identify all trauma patients admitted to an urban Level I trauma center between January 2013 and December 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, mechanism of injury, prehospital vital signs, and the presence of a pelvic fracture. Participants were randomly assigned to a training group (70%) or a validation group (30%). Univariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors for use in multivariate predictive models.

RESULTS

A total of 8,480 (65% male; median age 49; median ISS 9) and 3,676 (65% male; median age 48; median ISS 9) trauma patients were randomly assigned to the training and validation groups, respectively. Univariate analysis showed significant likelihood of pelvic fracture associated with female sex, hemodynamic instability (initial systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), blunt injury type, specific mechanisms of injury (motor vehicle collision, motorcycle collision, pedestrian struck by motor vehicle, crushing injury, and riding an animal), impact location, and position in vehicle. Multivariate models adjusting for blunt type injury, hemodynamic instability, impact location, and position in vehicle showed that presence of two or more of these risk factors is significantly associated with presence of pelvic fracture.

CONCLUSION

Establishing select prehospital criteria for the empiric application of pelvic binders for patients in the field with blunt injuries, hemodynamic instability, frontal or side motor vehicle collision impact, and non-front seat passenger may improve outcomes among patients with pelvic fractures.

Pelvic fracture-related hypotension: A review of contemporary adjuncts for hemorrhage control

ABSTRACT

Major pelvic hemorrhage remains a considerable challenge of modern trauma care associated with mortality in over a third of patients. Efforts to improve outcomes demand continued research into the optimal employment of both traditional and newer hemostatic adjuncts across the full spectrum of emergent care environments. The purpose of this review is to provide a concise description of the rationale for and effective use of currently available adjuncts for the control of pelvic hemorrhage. In addition, the challenges of defining the optimal order and algorithm for employment of these adjuncts will be outlined.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review, level IV.

Application of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices in Pelvic Ring Fractures-Are Guidelines Followed in Daily Practice?

Early administration of a pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) is recommended for suspected pelvic trauma. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of PCCD in patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the resuscitation room (RR) of a Level I trauma center. Furthermore, correct application of the PCCD as well as associated injuries with potential clinical sequelae were assessed. All patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the RR of a level one trauma center between 2016 and 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Presence and position of the PCCD on the initial trauma scan were assessed and rated. Associated injuries with potential adverse effects on clinical outcome were analysed. Seventy-seven patients were included, of which 26 (34%) had a PCCD in place. Eighteen (23%) patients had an unstable fracture pattern of whom ten (56%) had received a PCCD. The PCCD was correctly placed in four (15%) cases, acceptable in 12 (46%) and incorrectly in ten (39%). Of all patients with pelvic fractures (n = 77, 100%) treated in the RR, only one third (n = 26, 34%) had a PCCD. In addition, 39% of PCCDs were positioned incorrectly. Of the patients with unstable pelvic fractures (n = 18, 100%), more than half either did not receive any PCCD (n = 8, 44%) or had one which was inadequately positioned (n = 2, 11 %). These results underline that preclinical and clinical education programs on PCCD indication and application should be critically reassessed.