Comparing the predictive value of the pelvic ring injury classification systems by Tile and by Young and Burgess

Abstract

IntroductionRadiology-based classifications of pelvic ring injuries and their relevance for the prognosis of morbidity and mortality are disputed in the literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate potential differences between the pelvic ring injury classification systems by Tile and by Young and Burgess with regard to their predictive value on mortality, transfusion/infusion requirement and concomitant injuries. Patients and methodsTwo-hundred-and-eighty-five consecutive patients with pelvic ring fractures were analyzed for mortality within 30 days after admission, number of blood units and total volume of fluid infused during the first 24h after trauma, the Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) scores for head, chest, spine, abdomen and extremities as a function of the Tile and the Young–Burgess classifications. ResultsThere was no significant relationship between occurrence of death and fracture pattern but a significant relationship between fracture pattern and need for blood units/total fluid volume for Tile (p<.001/p<.001) and Young–Burgess (p<.001/p<.001). In both classifications, open book fractures were associated with more fluid requirement and more severe injuries of the abdomen, spine and extremities (p<.05). When divided into the larger subgroups “partially stable” and “unstable”, unstable fractures were associated with a higher mortality rate in the Young–Burgess system (p=.036). In both classifications, patients with unstable fractures required significantly more blood transfusions (p<.001) and total fluid infusion (p<.001) and higher AIS scores. ConclusionsIn this first direct comparison of both classifications, we found no clinical relevant differences with regard to their predictive value on mortality, transfusion/infusion requirement and concomitant injuries.