Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing versus Angioembolization for Patients with Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures with Pelvic Bleeding: A Single-Centered Retrospective Study

Angioembolization Has Similar Efficacy and Lower Total Charges than Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing in Patients With Pelvic Ring or Acetabulum Fractures

OBJECTIVES

To compare cost, hospital-related outcomes, and mortality between angioembolization (AE) and preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures.

METHODS

.

DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

SETTING

National Inpatient Sample, years 2016-2020.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Hospitalized adult patients who underwent AE or PPP in the setting of a pelvic ring or acetabulum fracture.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

Mortality and hospital-associated outcomes, including total charges, following AE versus PPP in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures.

RESULTS

A total of 3780 patients, 3620 undergoing AE and 160 undergoing PPP, were included. No significant differences in mortality, length of stay, time to procedure, or discharge disposition were found ( P > 0.05); however, PPP was associated with significantly greater charges than AE ( P = 0.04). Patients who underwent AE had a mean total charge of $250,062.88 while those undergoing PPP had a mean total charge of $369,137.16.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite equivalent clinical efficacy in terms of mortality and hospital-related outcomes, PPP was associated with significantly greater charges than AE in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures. This data information can inform clinical management of these patients and assist trauma centers in resource allocation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of Preperitoneal Packing and Angioembolization for Hemorrhage Control in Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures are often life-threatening injuries; however, the optimal management remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the most appropriate primary management of hemorrhage in adult patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures by comparing outcomes following the initial use of preperitoneal packing (PPP) vs angioembolization (AE).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies assessing hemorrhage management in trauma patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures were included. The data extracted from selected articles included patient demographics, study design, and outcomes such as 24-hour PRBC transfusions, in-hospital mortality, and DVT rate.

RESULTS

Eight articles were included in the systematic review. Among the included studies, 2040 patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures were analyzed. Meta-analyses revealed that treatment with PPP was associated with fewer 24-hour PRBC transfusions (mean difference = -1.0, 95% CI: -1.8 to -.2) than AE. However, no significant differences were noted in in-hospital mortality (RR: .91, 95% CI: .80-1.05) and the rate of deep vein thrombosis (RR: .89, 95% CI: .62-1.28) between groups.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that primary management with PPP was associated with fewer 24-hour PRBC transfusions compared to AE. The choice of primary management with PPP or AE did not significantly impact in-hospital mortality. Future studies should address clinical outcomes and the factors that affect them to better understand the impact of different management strategies and direct the creation of practice management guidelines.