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

Preperitoneal pelvic packing in isolated severe pelvic fractures is associated with higher mortality and venous thromboembolism: A matched-cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) has been advocated as a damage control procedure for pelvic fracture bleeding, despite of weak evidence.

METHODS

Matched cohort study, TQIP database. Patients with isolated severe blunt pelvic fractures (pelvis abbreviated injury score [AIS] ​≥ ​3, AIS ≤2 in all other body regions) were included. Patients who underwent PPP were matched to patients with no PPP, 1:3 nearest propensity score. Matching was performed based on demographics, vital signs on admission, comorbidities, injury characteristics, type and timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis, and additional procedures including laparotomy, REBOA, and angioembolization.

RESULTS

64 patients with PPP were matched with 182 patients with No-PPP. PPP patients had higher in-hospital mortality (14.1 ​% vs 2.2 ​% p ​< ​0.001) and higher rates of VTE and DVT (VTE: 14.1 ​% vs 4.4 ​% p ​= ​0.018, DVT: 10.9 ​% vs 2.2 ​% p ​= ​0.008).

CONCLUSION

PPP is associated with worse survival outcomes and increased rate of VTE and DVT complications.

Preperitoneal Packing for Pelvic Fracture Bleeding Control: A Human Cadaver Study

BACKGROUND

Preperitoneal packing (PPP) has been widely accepted as a damage control technique for severe bleeding from pelvic fractures. It is supposed to work by direct compression and tamponade of the bleeding source in the pelvis and it has been suggested to be effective for both venous and arterial bleeding. However, there is little evidence to support its efficacy or the ability to place the laparotomy pads in proximity of the desired location.

METHODS

Bilateral PPP was performed on 10 fresh human cadavers, followed by laparotomy and measurements of resultant pad placement in relation to critical anatomic structures.

RESULTS

A total of 20 assessments of laparotomy pad placement were performed. Following completion of PPP, a midline laparotomy was performed to determine proximity and closest distance of the laparotomy pads to sites of potential bleeding in pelvic fractures. In almost all cases, the pad placement was not contiguous with the key anatomic structure with mean placement 3.9 + 1.1 cm from the sacroiliac joint, 3.5 + 1.6 cm from the common iliac artery, 1.1 + 1.2 cm from the external iliac artery, 2.8 + 0.8 cm from the internal iliac artery, and 2.3 + 1.2 cm from the iliac bifurcation. Surgeon experience resulted in improved placement relative to the sacroiliac joint, however the pads still did not directly contact the target point.

CONCLUSION

This human cadaver study has shown that PPP, even in experienced hands, may not be placed in significant proximity of anatomical structures of interest. The role of PPP needs to be revisited with better clinical or human cadaver studies.

Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing is Associated With Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism

INTRODUCTION

Preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) is an important intervention for control of severe pelvic hemorrhage in blunt trauma patients. We hypothesized that PPP is associated with an increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of blunt trauma patients with severe pelvic fractures (AIS ≥4) using the 2015-2017 American College of Surgeons-Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was performed. Patients who underwent PPP within four hours of admission were matched to patients who did not using propensity score matching. Matching was performed based on demographics, comorbidities, injury- and resuscitation-related parameters, vital signs at presentation, and initiation and type of prophylactic anticoagulation. The rates of DVT and PE were compared between the matched groups.

RESULTS

Out of 5129 patients with severe pelvic fractures, 157 (3.1%) underwent PPP within four h of presentation and were matched with 157 who did not. No significant differences were detected between the two matched groups in any of the examined baseline variables. Similarly, mortality and end-organ failure rates were not different. However, PPP patients were significantly more likely to develop DVT (12.7% versus 5.1%, P = 0.028) and PE (5.7% versus 0.0%, P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

PPP in severe pelvic fractures secondary to blunt trauma is associated with an increased risk of DVT and PE. A high index of suspicion and a low threshold for screening for these conditions should be maintained in patients who undergo PPP.