Pelvic Binders in Trauma Patients - Are We Doing it Right?

Introduction: Pelvic fractures from high-energy trauma require immediate stabilisation to avoid significant morbidity and mortality. When applied correctly over the level of the greater trochanters (GT) pelvic binders provide adequate stabilisation of unstable pelvic fractures. The aim of this study was to identify the accuracy of placement of pelvic binders in patients presenting to the local Major Trauma Centre (MTC). Methods: A retrospective study was carried out to assess the level of the pelvic binders in relation to the greater trochanters of the patient-classified as optimal or sub-optimal. Results: An initial review of the computed tomography (CT) trauma series in 28 consecutive patients with pelvic binders revealed that more than 50% of the pelvic binders were placed above the level of the GT, reducing the efficacy of the pelvic binders. A regional educational and training day was held with a focus on pelvic fracture management. Following this, a review was conducted on the placement of the pelvic binder in 100 consecutive patients. This confirmed a significant improvement in the position of the pelvic binder by over 70%. Conclusion: Inaccurately positioned pelvic binders provided suboptimal stabilisation of pelvic fractures. With education and awareness, there has been an improvement in the accuracy of pelvic binder placement in trauma patients. This study has highlighted the need for regular audit of current practice, in combination with regular education and training.

Sacroiliac Separation that Can be Diagnosed After Pelvic Fixation During Surgery: A Case Report and Review of Literature

Introduction: Sacroiliac joint separation is a life-threatening serious condition in pelvic injuries. It should be diagnosed early and treated properly. Although these injuries can often be detected by imaging methods, in some cases, it is not diagnosed. Case presentation: We report a rare case of pelvic injury with sacroiliac separation during surgery, while the sacroiliac joint was completely normal on X-ray and CT and no pelvic binder was used in the patient. The sacroiliac separation noticed during the operation was fixed with a sacroiliac screw. Conclusion: Pelvic injuries, especially ligament injuries, may not be detected on both physical examination, direct radiography, and CT.

Comparison between External Fixation and Pelvic Binder in Patients with Pelvic Fracture and Haemodynamic Instability who Underwent Various Haemostatic Procedures

Haemostatic procedures such as preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), pelvic angiography (PA), and internal iliac artery ligation are used for haemorrhage control in pelvic fracture patients with haemodynamic instability. Pelvic external fixation (PEF) and pelvic binder (PB) are usually applied with haemostatic procedures to reduce the pelvic volume. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients who underwent PEF and PB. Among 173 patients with pelvic fracture admitted to the emergency room of three regional trauma centres between January 2015 and December 2018, the electronic charts of haemodynamically unstable patients were retrospectively analysed. Among 92 patients included in the analysis, 21 patients underwent PEF and 71 patients underwent PB. There were significant differences in tile classification and laparotomy between the PEF and PB groups (p = 0.018 and p = 0.046). PPP tended to be more frequently preformed in the PEF group (p = 0.074), whereas PA tended to be more commonly performed in the PB group than in the PEF group (p = 0.058). After propensity score matching to adjust for differences in patient characteristics and adjunct haemostatic procedure, there was a significant difference in haemorrhage-induced mortality between the PEF and PB groups (0% vs 25%, p = 0.047). Kaplan–Meier curve analysis also showed a significant difference in haemorrhage-induced mortality between the two groups (log-rank test, p = 0.020). Among the volume reduction procedures performed with other haemostatic procedures in patients with pelvic fracture and haemodynamic instability, PEF significantly reduced haemorrhage-induced mortality compared to PB.

In a simulated adult trauma patient, can pelvic binders be applied accurately by paramedics and HEMS paramedics? A pilot observational study

Background: Pre-hospital treatment of suspected haemorrhagic pelvic fractures includes application of a purpose-made pelvic binder. Recent hospital studies identified poor accuracy of pelvic binder application, but there is little pre-hospital research to date.Methods: A pilot observational study was conducted in an NHS ambulance service to examine the accuracy of landmark identification and pelvic binder application. Paramedics and Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) paramedics were recruited via an internal advert. Participants were asked to name and identify the landmarks (greater trochanters) on a simulated patient and apply the Prometheus pelvic splint. Participants read two clinical scenarios and indicated if they would apply a pelvic binder. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the analysis of results to compare performance between the two groups.Results: Twenty-six paramedics were recruited. A total of 92.3% (n = 12) paramedics and 100% (n = 13) HEMS paramedics verbalised the correct landmarks. A total of 23.1% (n = 3) paramedics and 61.5% (n = 8) HEMS paramedics identified the correct landmarks on both sides of the pelvis. A total of 15.4% (n = 2) paramedics and 61.5% (n = 8) HEMS paramedics applied the pelvic binder centrally over both greater trochanters. Clinical decision-making to apply a pelvic binder was largely in accordance with a local standard operating procedure.Conclusion: This study supports existing research highlighting cases of inaccurate pelvic binder placement. HEMS paramedics were more accurate than paramedics, but only 39% of all binders placed in the study were applied correctly. Frequent exposure to major trauma and familiarity with pelvic binders may have resulted in greater accuracy among HEMS paramedics. Further education and training around clinical assessment of the pelvis may improve the accuracy of pelvic binder application by all paramedics. This would subsequently improve the quality of patient care and ensure adequate haemorrhage control is maintained.

Comparison of pelvic C-clamp and pelvic binder for emergency stabilization and bleeding control in type-C pelvic ring fractures

Severe bleeding is the major cause of death in unstable pelvic ring fractures. Therefore, a quick and efficient emergency stabilization and bleeding control is inevitable. C-clamp and pelvic binder are efficient tools for temporary bleeding control, especially from the posterior pelvic ring. Yet the C-clamp requires more user knowledge, training and equipment. However, whether this makes up for a more efficient bleeding control, is still under debate. Patients with a type-C pelvic ring fracture were identified from the German Pelvic Registry (GPR) and divided into three groups of 40 patients (1. no emergency stabilization, 2. pelvic binder, 3. C-clamp). The matching occurred according to the parameters age, gender, initial RR and initial HB. Complication—and mortality rates were compared especially regarding bleeding control. Regarding ISS and fracture dislocation there was no difference. The use of the C-clamp resulted in more complications, a higher mortality rate due to severe bleeding and more blood transfusions were admitted. Moreover the pelvic binder was established noticeably faster. However, the C-clamp was more often rated as effective. There is no evidence of advantage comparing the C-clamp to the pelvic binder, regarding bleeding control in type-C pelvic ring fractures. In fact, using the pelvic binder even showed better results, as the time until established bleeding control was significantly shorter. Therefore, the pelvic binder should be the first choice. The C-clamp should remain a measure for selected cases only, if an adequate bleeding control cannot be achieved by the pelvic binder.

Military experience in the management of pelvic fractures from OIF/OEF

IntroductionPelvic fractures are a common occurrence in combat trauma. However, the fracture pattern and management within the most recent conflicts, i.e. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), have yet to be described, especially in the context of dismounted complex blast injury. Our goal was to identify the incidence, patterns of injury and management of pelvic fractures.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review on all combat-injured patients who arrived at our military treatment hospital between November 2010 and November 2012. Basic demographics, Young-Burgess fracture pattern classification and treatment strategies were examined.ResultsOf 562 patients identified within the study time period, 14% (81 of 562) were found to have a pelvic fracture. The vast majority (85%) were secondary to an improvised explosive device. The average Injury Severity Score for patients with pelvic fracture was 31±12 and 70% were classified as open. Of the 228 patients with any traumatic lower extremity amputation, 23% had pelvic fractures, while 30% of patients with bilateral above-knee amputations also sustained a pelvic fracture. The most common Young-Burgess injury pattern was anteroposterior compression (APC) (57%), followed by lateral compression (LC) (36%) and vertical shear (VS) (7%). Only 2% (nine of 562) of all patients were recorded as having pelvic binders placed in the prehospital setting. 49% of patients with pelvic fracture required procedural therapy, the most common of which was placement of a pelvic external fixator (34 of 40; 85%), followed by preperitoneal packing (16 of 40; 40%) and angioembolisation (three of 40; 0.75%). 17 (42.5%) patients required combinations of these three treatment modalities, the majority of which were a combination of external fixator and preperitoneal packing. The likelihood to need procedural therapy was impacted by injury pattern, as 72% of patients with an APC injury, 100% of patients with a VS injury and 25% of patients with an LC injury required procedural therapy.ConclusionsPelvic fractures were common concomitant injuries following blast-induced traumatic lower extremity amputations. APC was the most common pelvic fracture pattern identified. While procedural therapy was frequent, the majority of patients underwent conservative therapy. However, placement of an external fixator was the most frequently used modality. Considering angioembolisation was used in less than 1% of cases, in the forward deployed military environment, management should focus on pelvic external fixation±preperitoneal packing. Finally, prehospital pelvic binder application may be an area for further process improvement.

Pelvic Binder Utilization in Combat Casualties: Does It Matter?

Introduction The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utilization of pelvic binders, the proper placement of binders, and to determine any differences in blood product transfusions between combat casualties with and without a pelvic binder identified on initial imaging immediately after the injury. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of all combat-injured patients who arrived at our military treatment hospital between 2010 and 2012 with a documented pelvic fracture. Initial imaging (X-ray or computed tomography) immediately after injury were evaluated by 2 independent radiologists. Young-Burgess (YB) classification, pelvic diastasis, correct binder placement over the greater trochanters, and the presence of a pelvic external fixator (ex-fix) was recorded. Injury severity score (ISS), whole blood, and blood component therapy administered within the first 24-hours after injury were compared between casualties with and without a pelvic binder. Results 39 casualties had overseas imaging to confirm and radiographically classify a YB pelvic ring injury. The most common fracture patterns were anteroposterior (53%) and lateral compression (28%). 49% (19/39) did not have a binder or ex-fix identified on initial imaging or in any documentation after injury. Ten patients had a binder, with 30% positioned incorrectly over the iliac crest. ISS (34 ± 1.6) was not statistically different between the binder and the no-binder group. Pubic symphysis diastasis was significantly lower in the binder group (1.4 ± 0.2 vs 3.7 ± 0.5, P < .001). There was a trend toward decreased 24-hour total blood products between the binder and no-binder groups (75 ± 11 vs 82 ± 13, P = .67). This was due to less cryoprecipitate in the binder group (6 ± 2 vs 19 ± 5, P = .01). Conclusions Pelvic binder placement in combat trauma may be inconsistent and an important area for continued training. While 24-hour total transfusions do not appear to be different, no-binder patients received significantly more cryoprecipitate.