Preperitoneal packing versus angioembolization for the initial management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture patients are challenging to manage. Preperitoneal packing (PPP) and angioembolization (AE) are two interventions commonly used to help gain hemorrhage control. Recently, there has been a tendency to support PPP in hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture seemingly in direct comparison with AE. However, it seems that key differences between published cohorts exist that limits a comparison between these two modalities. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases was conducted. Prospective and retrospective studies were eligible. No limitation was placed on publication date, with only manuscripts printed in English eligible (PROSPERO CRD42021236219). Included studies were retrospective and prospective cohort studies and a quasirandomized control trial. Studies reported demographic and outcome data on hemodynamically unstable patients with pelvis fractures that had either PPP or AE as their initial hemorrhage control intervention. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality rate. Eighteen studies were included totaling 579 patients, of which 402 were treated with PPP and 177 with AE. Significant differences were found between AE and PPP in regard to age, presence of arterial hemorrhage, Injury Severity Score, and time to intervention. The crude mortality rate for PPP was 23%, and for AE, it was 32% (p = 0.001). Analysis of dual-arm studies showed no significant difference in mortality. Interestingly, 27% of patients treated with PPP did not get adequate hemorrhage control and required subsequent AE. Because of bias, heterogeneity, and inadequate reporting of physiological data, a conclusive comparison between modalities is impossible. In addition, in more than a quarter of the cases treated with PPP, the patients did not achieve hemorrhage control until subsequent AE was performed. This systematic review highlights the need for standardized reporting in this high-risk group of trauma patients. Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.