Retroperitoneal packing or angioembolization for haemorrhage control of pelvic fractures--Quasi-randomized clinical trial of 56 haemodynamically unstable patients with Injury Severity Score ≥33

The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fifth edition

BACKGROUND

Severe traumatic injury continues to present challenges to healthcare systems around the world, and post-traumatic bleeding remains a leading cause of potentially preventable death among injured patients. Now in its fifth edition, this document aims to provide guidance on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following traumatic injury and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles described here to individual institutional circumstances and resources.

METHODS

The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004, and the current author group included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group applied a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were re-examined and revised based on scientific evidence that has emerged since the previous edition and observed shifts in clinical practice. New recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated.

RESULTS

Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of post-traumatic coagulopathy have supported improved management strategies, including evidence that early, individualised goal-directed treatment improves the outcome of severely injured patients. The overall organisation of the current guideline has been designed to reflect the clinical decision-making process along the patient pathway in an approximate temporal sequence. Recommendations are grouped behind the rationale for key decision points, which are patient- or problem-oriented rather than related to specific treatment modalities. While these recommendations provide guidance for the diagnosis and treatment of major bleeding and coagulopathy, emerging evidence supports the author group's belief that the greatest outcome improvement can be achieved through education and the establishment of and adherence to local clinical management algorithms.

CONCLUSIONS

A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. If incorporated into local practice, these clinical practice guidelines have the potential to ensure a uniform standard of care across Europe and beyond and better outcomes for the severely bleeding trauma patient.

Strategies for the management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures: From preperitoneal pelvic packing to definitive internal fixation

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Preperitoneal pelvic packing is useful, and favorable treatment outcomes have been reported. However, the timing of subsequent internal fixation of the pelvis is still debatable. We report the outcomes of a study on patients that underwent internal fixation after preperitoneal packing.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed for patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture who underwent preperitoneal pelvic packing and internal fixation. Patients who underwent internal fixation with simultaneous packing removal were placed in Group 1. Patients who underwent definitive internal fixation later were placed in Group 2.

RESULTS

Of the 56 patients (mean age 44.7 years), 36 were male. The mean time from injury to internal fixation was 1.3 (1-2) days and 5.6 (3-10) days in Group 1 and 2, respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean duration of stay in the intensive care unit: 10.9 (3-54) days in Group 1 vs. 14.4 (5-43) days in Group 2 (p = 0.019). Thirty-one cases of complications occurred among 14 patients (25%), including six cases of surgical site infection. Among the six cases of infection, four were superficial and two were deep; five of these cases occurred in Group 2, including both cases of deep infection (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Performing internal fixation with packing removal should aid the return of the patient to a stable state, as it is possible to utilize the same incision line used for the original packing procedure, while providing stability to the pelvis.

Variability in pelvic packing practices for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures at US level 1 trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Mortality from hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains high. Guidelines offer varying care approaches including the use of pelvic packing (PP), which was recently adopted for potential control of bleeding for this condition. However, the implementation of PP is uncertain as the debate on the optimal resuscitation strategy, angioembolization or PP continues. The study was designed to assess current practices among level 1 trauma centers in the US in regard to PP treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was created to assess when to apply PP, application approach, and the respondent's anecdotal perception on safety and effectiveness. Trauma Medical Directors at 158 US level 1 trauma centers were sent biweekly email invitations for 3 months. Participants were allowed to skip questions for any reason. The study hypothesis was that PP practices vary by US census bureau region, annual trauma admissions, and length of time in years since each trauma center received their respective level 1 trauma center designation.

RESULTS

Twenty-five percent (40/158) of trauma medical directors participated and 75% (118/158) of the trauma medical directors did not participate. Of those who took the survey, 36/40 (90%) completed the survey and 4/40 (10%) partially completed the survey. Only 36 trauma medical directors responded on their perception of safety and effectiveness; 72% (26/36) of participants perceived PP as safe, whereas only a third (12/36) of participants perceived PP as effective. There were 25 trauma medical directors who provided the sequence of treatment modalities utilized at their level 1 trauma center, 76% (19/25) of participants reported that PP is utilized as the third or fourth priority. None of the participating level 1 trauma centers reported a preference towards utilization of PP as the first priority treatment. Half of the participants reported a preference towards applying PP only as a last resort to control hemorrhage. Northeastern and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely than Midwestern and Southern level 1 trauma centers to have reported application of PP to all hemodynamically unstable patients (p = 0.05). Midwestern, Southern, and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have perceived PP as safe than Northeastern level 1 trauma centers (p = 0.04). All low-volume and 38% high-volume level 1 trauma centers perceived PP to increase infection risks, (p = 0.03). We observed no association between the length of time each trauma center was designated a level 1 trauma center, and all participant responses.

CONCLUSION

Controversy and varying anecdotal perception regarding safety and effectiveness of PP prevails among trauma medical directors at level 1 trauma centers in the US.

Early management of severe pelvic injury (first 24 hours)

OBJECTIVE

Pelvic fractures represent 5% of all traumatic fractures and 30% are isolated pelvic fractures. Pelvic fractures are found in 10 to 20% of severe trauma patients and their presence is highly correlated to increasing trauma severity scores. The high mortality of pelvic trauma, about 8 to 15%, is related to actively bleeding pelvic injuries and/or associated injuries to the head, abdomen or chest. Regardless of the severity of pelvic trauma, diagnosis and treatment must proceed according to a strategy that does not delay the management of the most severely injured patients. To date, in France, there are no guidelines issued by healthcare authorities or professional societies that address this subject.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 22 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation; SFAR) and the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence; SFMU) in collaboration with the French Society of Radiology (Société Française de Radiologie; SFR), French Defence Health Service (Service de Santé des Armées; SSA), French Society of Urology (Association Française d'Urologie; AFU), the French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique; SOCFCOT), and the French Society of Digestive Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie digestive; SFCD) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently from any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE^® methodology.

RESULTS

The SFAR Guideline panel provided 22 statements on prehospital and hospital management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture. After three rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, 11 have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 ± ), 11 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2 ± ).

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture.

Effectiveness and postoperative wound infection of preperitoneal pelvic packing in patients with hemodynamic instability caused by pelvic fracture

Introduction

Despite the use of a multidisciplinary treatment approach, the mortality rate of hemodynamic instability due to severe pelvic fracture remains 40–60%. Several recent studies have shown that preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) was useful for achieving hemostasis in these patients in the acute phase. However, few studies have examined postoperative complications. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and wound infections of PPP in these patients.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 62 patients with hemorrhagic shock due to pelvic fracture between March 2011 and May 2017. Excluding four patients (two with other major hemorrhage sites and two who experienced cardiac arrest in the emergency room), the patients were divided into PPP (n = 30) and non-PPP (n = 28) groups according to PPP application. Clinical outcomes including early-stage mortality, transfusion amount, and surgical site infection (SSI) were compared between the two groups.

Results

The overall mortality rate was 48.3% and the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 39 ± 9. The 30 patients in the PPP group had a significantly lower hemorrhage-induced mortality rate than the 28 patients in the non-PPP group (16.7% vs 50%, p = 0.019), although both groups had similar patient characteristics (age, ISS, and initial serum lactate level). Independent factors associated with hemorrhage-induced mortality were PPP and the requirement of packed red blood cells for 4 h. In the PPP group, SSI occurred in 5 of 25 (20%) patients.

Conclusions

PPP may be considered as a hemostatic modality for hemodynamic instability due to pelvic fracture because it reduces the hemorrhage-induced mortality rate. However, wound infections after the procedure should be considered.

Current trends in the management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic ring injuries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Complex traumatic pelvic ring disruptions are associated with a high mortality rate due to associated retroperitoneal hemorrhage, traumatic-hemorrhagic shock, and postinjury coagulopathy. The present review provides an update on current management strategies to improve survival rates form hemodynamically unstable pelvic ring injuries.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recently published international consensus guidelines have attempted to standardize the classification of hemodynamically unstable pelvic ring injuries and provided classification-based management algorithms for acute resuscitation and pelvic ring stabilization.

SUMMARY

Acute management strategies for pelvic ring disruptions with associated hemorrhagic shock include resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta for patients 'in extremis' in conjunction with point-of-care guided resuscitation for postinjury coagulopathy. Recent data indicate that a protocol of early pelvic external fixation in conjunction with direct preperitoneal pelvic packing and subsequent angioembolization in patients with ongoing hemorrhage results in significantly improved survival from retroperitoneal exsanguinating hemorrhage in at-risk patients with historic mortality rates as high as 50-60%.

Optimal sequence of surgical procedures for hemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic fracture: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The mortality rate of patients with hemodynamic instability due to severe pelvic fracture remains substantial and massive transfusion happens frequently. Angio-embolization, external fixation and preperitoneal pelvic packing of the pelvis are the main managements used to control bleeding in these patients. In this paper, we aimed at characterizing the rationale of these surgical managements, and placed them in optimal management algorithm to compose a new guideline.

METHODS

We selected controlled trials, assessing safety of management for the intervention of hemorrhagic shock from mortality data, and assessing efficacy from volume of first 24 h blood transfusion following hospitalization. Six single and combined managements were extracted as comparison. A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model, and then the analysis was extended to a network meta-analysis. Pooled effect sizes were ranked and demonstrated the probability of being the best treatments for safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

13 clinical trials and 24,396 participants were identified for this analysis. The assessment of rank probability indicated that pelvic packing presented the greatest likelihood of improving safety, while external fixation was indicated most efficient among the interventions for controlling hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical protocols for guidelines of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture patients have been multidirectionally developed. We strongly support the initial application of an external fixator. Provided that patients remain hemodynamically unstable after application of an external fixation, pelvic packing is the next procedure to consider. Angio-embolization is the complementary but not alternative method of choice subsequently.

Effect of angioembolisation versus surgical packing on mortality in traumatic pelvic haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of complex pattern of bleeding associated with pelvic trauma remains a big challenge for trauma surgeons. We aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of angioembolisation and pelvic packing in patients with pelvic trauma.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic information sources, including MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; the CENTRAL; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; ISRCTN Register, and bibliographic reference lists. The primary outcome was defined as mortality. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models. Results are reported as the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

We identified 3 observational studies reporting a total of 120 patients undergoing angioembolisation (n=60) or pelvic packing (n=60) for pelvic trauma. Reporting of the Injury Severity Score (ISS) was variable, with higher ISS in the pelvic packing group. The risk of bias was low in two studies, and moderate in one. The pooled analysis demonstrated that angioembolisation did not significantly reduce mortality in patients with pelvic trauma compared to surgery (OR=1.99; 95% CI= 0.83-4.78, P=0.12). There was mild between-study heterogeneity (I²=0%, P=0.65).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis found no significant difference in mortality between angioembolisation and pelvic packing in patients with traumatic pelvic haemorrhage. The current level of evidence in this context is very limited and insufficient to support the superiority of a treatment modality. Future research is required.

Improvement of outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures and hemodynamic instability after the establishment of a Korean regional trauma center

PURPOSE

Despite using a multidisciplinary treatment approach, the mortality rate of patients with hemodynamic instability from severe pelvic fractures is still 40-60%. We evaluated the improvement of outcomes in this patient population after the establishment of a regional trauma center in Korea.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of 50 patients with hemodynamic instability due to pelvic fractures between March 2011 and November 2016. Patients were divided into two groups: the pre-trauma center (PTC) group (n = 23) and trauma center (TC) group (n = 27).

RESULTS

Sixteen (32.0%) patients died of exsanguination. Patients in the TC group had shorter trauma resuscitation room stay (101 vs 273 min, p < 0.001) and underwent preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) more frequently (88.9 vs 8.7%, p < 0.001) than those in the PTC group. During the TC period, emergent procedures such as PPP and pelvic angiography were performed more frequently (92.6 vs 39.1%, p < 0.001). Although there was no statistical difference in the overall mortality rate between groups, patients in the TC group had less mortality due to hemorrhage (18.5 vs 47.8%, p = 0.027). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that initial systolic blood pressure and establishment of trauma center were independent protective factors of mortality from hemorrhage [odds ratio (OR) 0.957, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.926-0.988, p = 0.007; OR 0.134, 95% CI 0.028-0.633, p = 0.011].

CONCLUSIONS

Since the regional trauma center was established, emergent procedures such as pelvic angiography and PPP were performed more frequently, and mortality due to exsanguination was significantly decreased.

Predictors of active arterial hemorrhage on angiography in pelvic fracture patients

PURPOSE

To determine predictors of active angiographic hemorrhage in pelvic fracture patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 66 trauma patients who had major hemorrhages due to pelvic fractures, and who underwent pelvic angiography between January 2012 and December 2014. The study population comprised 31 males and 35 females (mean age 44.2 ± 20.7 years). The main outcome was active hemorrhage on pelvic angiography. Clinical and imaging variables including demographics, hemodynamic parameters, injury severity, types of pelvic fracture, laboratory data, blood transfusions and CT findings were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of active angiographic hemorrhage.

RESULTS

Of the 66 study patients included, 41 patients had active angiographic hemorrhage. These patients had more blood transfusions, higher activated partial thromboplastin times and higher rates of contrast extravasation on CT (p < 0.05). Three independent predictors of active angiographic hemorrhage were identified, including contrast extravasation on CT (OR: 74.6, p < 0.001), more than 8 units of RBC transfusions (OR: 12.5, p = 0.018) and ISS ≥ 16 (OR: 11.1, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Contrast extravasation on CT, high volume RBC transfusions and ISS ≥ 16 can help us to select pelvic fracture patients for angiography more precisely.

Acute Management of the Traumatically Injured Pelvis

Severe pelvic trauma is a challenging condition. The pelvis can create multifocal hemorrhage that is not easily compressible nor managed by traditional surgical methods such as tying off a blood vessel or removing an organ. Its treatment often requires reapproximation of bony structures, damage control resuscitation, assessment for associated injuries, and triage of investigations, as well as multimodality hemorrhage control (external fixation, preperitoneal packing, angioembolization, REBOA [resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta]) by multidisciplinary trauma specialists (general surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, endovascular surgeons/interventional radiologists). This article explores this complex clinical problem and provides a practical approach to its management.

Effect of Retroperitoneal Pelvic Packing on Pelvic Cavity Pressure: A Cadaveric Study

Limited clinical evidence demonstrates the effectiveness of direct retroperitoneal pelvic packing for hemorrhage control in pelvic fractures due to the difficulty in measuring pressure on the pelvic walls within the pelvic cavity after retroperitoneal pelvic packing. Using a cadaver model, the authors aimed to assess whether retroperitoneal pelvic packing generates pressure that exceeds the venous return and arterial pressure in the pelvis. The pressure on the pelvic wall was measured in 5 fresh Japanese cadavers. Sensors were placed at 4 points on the pelvic wall, and the pressure at each point was measured after the insertion of each of 3 sponges, per the procedure originally described for direct retroperitoneal pelvic packing. In each specimen, the average pressure across all 4 points on the pelvic wall increased with the addition of each sponge, reaching 12.3±4.5 mm Hg when all 3 sponges were inserted. Furthermore, the pressure at the pelvic floor and posterior pelvic brim increased significantly, whereas the pressure at the anterior and middle pelvic brim increased nonsignificantly. The results of this study suggest that retroperitoneal pelvic packing provides pressure on the pelvic wall that exceeds the venous pressure and is thus effective for the control of venous hemorrhage in pelvic fractures. Currently, the recommended procedure combines external fixation for venous bleeding, transcatheter arterial embolization, and pelvic packing; however, the authors' results suggest that pelvic packing alone may be effective for controlling venous hemorrhage in pelvic fracture. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(6);e947-e951.].

Preperitoneal pelvic packing reduces mortality in patients with life-threatening hemorrhage due to unstable pelvic fractures

BACKGROUND

A 2015 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma trial reported a 32% mortality for pelvic fracture patients in shock. Angioembolization (AE) is the most common intervention; the Maryland group revealed time to AE averaged 5 hours. The goal of this study was to evaluate the time to intervention and outcomes of an alternative approach for pelvic hemorrhage. We hypothesized that preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) results in a shorter time to intervention and lower mortality.

METHODS

In 2004, we initiated a PPP protocol for pelvic fracture hemorrhage.

RESULTS

During the 11-year study, 2,293 patients were admitted with pelvic fractures; 128 (6%) patients underwent PPP (mean age, 44 ± 2 years; Injury Severity Score (ISS), 48 ± 1.2). The lowest emergency department systolic blood pressure was 74 mm Hg and highest heart rate was 120. Median time to operation was 44 minutes and 3 additional operations were performed in 109 (85%) patients. Median RBC transfusions before SICU admission compared with the 24 postoperative hours were 8 versus 3 units (p < 0.05). After PPP, 16 (13%) patients underwent AE with a documented arterial blush.Mortality in this high-risk group was 21%. Death was due to brain injury (9), multiple organ failure (4), pulmonary or cardiac failure (6), withdrawal of support (4), adverse physiology (3), and Mucor infection (1). Of those patients with physiologic exhaustion, 2 died in the operating room at 89 and 100 minutes after arrival, whereas 1 died 9 hours after arrival.

CONCLUSIONS

PPP results in a shorter time to intervention and lower mortality compared with modern series using AE. Examining mortality, only 3 (2%) deaths were attributed to the immediate sequelae of bleeding with physiologic failure. With time to death under 100 minutes in 2 patients, AE is unlikely to have been feasible. PPP should be used for pelvic fracture-related bleeding in the patient who remains unstable despite initial transfusion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Pelvic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines

Complex pelvic injuries are among the most dangerous and deadly trauma related lesions. Different classification systems exist, some are based on the mechanism of injury, some on anatomic patterns and some are focusing on the resulting instability requiring operative fixation. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic impairment of pelvic ring function and the associated injuries. The management of pelvic trauma patients aims definitively to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology associated to the mechanical stability of the pelvic ring. Thus the management of pelvic trauma must be multidisciplinary and should be ultimately based on the physiology of the patient and the anatomy of the injury. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of pelvic trauma and the management Guidelines.