Damage-Control Orthopedics Versus Early Total Care in the Treatment of Borderline High-Energy Pelvic Fractures

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of damage-control orthopedics (DCO) vs early total care (ETC) in the treatment of borderline high-energy pelvic fractures. Seventy-two patients with borderline high-energy pelvic fractures were retrospectively reviewed; 39 received DCO and 33 received ETC. Demographic data and initial injury severities were comparable between groups, except for Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) head scores and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Regarding postoperative complications, the incidence rates of acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome and the mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score were significantly lower in the DCO group compared with the ETC group. Similar results were also observed in subgroups stratified by age (younger than 40 years and 40 years and older). Regarding patients with Tile B fractures, there was no significant difference between groups in incidence rates of overall postoperative complications. However, in patients with Tile C fractures, especially in those 40 years and older, the DCO group had a lower incidence rate of ALI and had lower APACHE II scores than did the ETC group. This study's findings indicate that DCO is the most suitable therapeutic option for patients with Tile C fractures, especially for those 40 years and older, whereas ETC is preferred for patients with Tile B fractures, provided that it is possible to avoid a second operation as well as any delays in patient mobilization.