Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices Research Articles

Imposter or knight in shining armor? Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) for severe pelvic injuries in patients with multiple trauma: a trauma-registry analysis

BackgroundPelvic Circumferential Compression Devices (PCCD) are standard in hemorrhage-control of unstable pelvic ring fractures (UPF). Controversial data on their usefulness exists. Aim of the study was to investigate whether prehospital application of PCCD can reduce mortality and transfusion requirements in UPF.MethodsRetrospective cohort study. From 2016 until 2021, 63,371 adult severely injured patients were included into TraumaRegister DGU® of the German Trauma Society (TR-DGU). We analyzed PCCD use over time and compared patients with multiple trauma patients and UPF, who received prehospital PCCD to those who did not (noPCCD). Groups were adjusted for risk of prehospital PCCD application by propensity score matching. Primary endpoints were hospital mortality, standardized mortality rate (SMR) and transfusion requirements.ResultsOverall UPF incidence was 9% (N = 5880) and PCCD use increased over time (7.5% to 20.4%). Of all cases with UPF, 40.2% received PCCD and of all cases with PCCD application, 61% had no pelvic injury at all. PCCD patients were more severely injured and had higher rates of shock or transfusion. 24-h.-mortality and hospital mortality were higher with PCCD (10.9% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.033; 17.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.070). Hospital mortality with PCCD was 1% lower than predicted. SMR was in favor of PCCD but failed statistical significance (0.95 vs. 1.04, p = 0.101). 1,860 propensity score matched pairs were analyzed: NoPCCD-patients received more often catecholamines (19.6% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.043) but required less surgical pelvic stabilization in the emergency room (28.6% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality or transfusion requirements.ConclusionWe observed PCCD overuse in general and underuse in UPF. Prehospital PCCD appears to be more a marker of injury severity and less triggered by presence of UPF. We found no salutary effect on survival or transfusion requirements. Inappropriate indication and technical flaw may have biased our results. TR-DGU does not contain data on these aspects. Further studies are necessary. Modular add-on questioners to the registry could offer one possible solution to overcome this limitation. We are concerned that PCCD use may be unfairly discredited by misinterpretation of the available evidence and strongly vote for a prospective trial.

Performance Assessment of Out-of-Hospital Use of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices for Severely Injured Patients in Switzerland: A Nationwide Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Patients with severe pelvic fractures carry a greater risk of severe bleeding, and pelvic compression devices (PCCD) are used to stabilize the pelvis on the pre-hospital scene. The aim of this study was to describe the use of PCCD in the pre-hospital setting on a nationwide scale (Switzerland) and determine the sensitivity, specificity and rates of over- and under-triage of the current application practices. The secondary objective was to identify pre-hospital factors associated with unstable pelvic fractures. Retrospective cross-sectional study using anonymized patient data (1 January 2015-31 December 2020) from the Swiss Trauma Registry (STR). Based on AIS scores, patients were assigned a unique principal diagnosis among three categories (unstable pelvic fracture-stable pelvic fracture-other) and assessed for use or not of PCCD. Secondarily, patient characteristics, initial pre-hospital vital signs, means of pre-hospital transport and trauma mechanism were also extracted from the database. 2790 patients were included for analysis. A PCCD was used in 387 (13.9%) patients. In the PCCD group, 176 (45.5%) had an unstable pelvic fracture, 52 (13.4%) a stable pelvic fracture and 159 (41.1%) an injury unrelated to the pelvic region. In the group who did not receive a PCCD, 214 (8.9%) had an unstable pelvic fracture, 182 (7.6%) a stable pelvic fracture and 2007 (83.5%) an injury unrelated to the pelvic region. The nationwide sensitivity of PCCD application was 45.1% (95% CI 40.1-50.2), the specificity 91.2% (95% CI 90-92.3), with both over- and under-triage rates of 55%. The prevalence of unstable fractures in our population was 14% (390/2790). We identified female sex, younger age, lower systolic blood pressure, higher shock index, pedestrian hit and fall ≥3 m as possible risk factors for an unstable pelvic fracture. Our results demonstrate a nationwide both over- and under-triage rate of 55% for out-of-hospital PCCD application. Female gender, younger age, lower blood pressure, higher shock index, pedestrian hit and fall >3 m are possible risk factors for unstable pelvic fracture, but it remains unclear if those parameters are relevant clinically to perform pre-hospital triage.

Practical Recommendations for Prehospital Selection of Pediatric Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices.

Although the instances of Special Operations Forces (SOF) medical providers treating pediatric pelvic fractures are rare, such fractures are notable injuries in terror attacks and are at high risk for morbidity and mortality for the patient as well as stress for the provider. Presently, guidelines for pediatric-sized pelvic stabilization device application are limited to measured pelvic circumference. This study aims to inform more practical sizing guidelines. Subjects aged 1 year to 14 years were enrolled. Subject height, weight, pelvic circumference, and fit on the Broselow Pediatric Emergency Tape® (Armstrong Medical Industries), fit with the Pediatric PelvicBinder® (PelvicBinder), and fit with the small SAM Pelvic Sling® (SAM® Medical) were collected. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects fitting each device. Sixty-five subjects were recruited; median age was 5 years (interquartile range, 1-8 years); 40 (62%) subjects were male. Ninety-one percent of subjects fit within the scale of the Broselow Tape (height <143-cm). One hundred percent of subjects with a height <143-cm had an appropriate fit with the Pediatric PelvicBinder (95% confidence level [CI], 91.8-100%), while 91.7% of subjects with a height >143-cm fit the SAM Pelvic Sling (95%CI, 61.5-99.8%). Providers should attempt to fit the Pediatric PelvicBinder for children >1 year old with suspected unstable pelvic fracture who fall on the Broselow Tape (<143-cm). The small SAM Pelvic Sling should be used for those taller than 143-cm.

Commonly performed pelvic binder modifications for femoral access may hinder binder efficacy

BackgroundPelvic fractures are common and potentially life-threatening. Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) can temporize hemorrhage, but more invasive strategies that involve femoral access may be necessary for definitive treatment. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of PCCDs reducing open book pelvic fractures when utilizing commonly described modifications and placement adjustments that allow for access to the femoral vasculature. MethodsOpen book pelvic fractures were created in adult cadavers. Three commercially available PCCDs were used to reduce fractures. The binders were properly placed, moved caudally, or moved cranially and modified. Fracture reduction rates were then recorded. ResultsThe pelvic fracture was completely reduced with every PCCD tested when properly placed. Reduction rates decreased with improper placement and modifications. ConclusionModifying PCCD placement to allow femoral access decreased the effectiveness of these devices Clinicians should be aware of this possibility when caring for critically injured trauma patients with pelvic fractures.

Benefits of early application of pelvic circumferential compression device to reduce bleeding in pelvic fractures

BackgroundTo study of efficacy of early pelvic circumferential compression device using in patients with suspected pelvic trauma, compared with conventional stepwise approach.MethodsTraumatic injury and at least one of the following criteria are required for inclusion: loss of consciousness or a Glasgow coma score (GCS) of less than 13; systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg; falling from more than 6 m; injury to several important organs; and a positive pelvic compression test. Patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria for the experimental group were given an early application of a commercial pelvic sling beginning in July 2019. The control group consisted of cases who got the device after clinical or radiological confirmation of a pelvic fracture in the previous year. Gender, age, mechanism of injury, GCS, hospital stay, amount of packed red blood cell transfusion, hematocrit in emergency room, and hematocrit 24 h after application of pelvic binder were all assessed and compared.ResultsThe study had a total of 30 participants, with 15 in each group. The number of packed red blood cell transfusions in the early pelvic binder group (0.80 ± 1.42) is considerably lower than in the control group (2.4 ± 2.32) (P = 0.008), although the hematocrit change is not statistically different between the groups (2.1 VS 0.7) (P = 0.191). The time it took to install a pelvic binder was considerably shorter in the early pelvic binder group (16.40 ± 5.45) than in the control group (40.40 ± 13.64) (P = 0.001). There were no problems associated to soft tissue and skin necrosis in either group of patients.ConclusionsThe use of the PCCD for 24 h prior to clinical and radiographic confirmation has significantly reduced the rate of packed red blood cell transfusion in any pelvic fracture patient without device-related complications.Trial registrationThe study was entered into the Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20210809007).

Are Pelvic Binders an Effective Prehospital Intervention?

Objective Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality. Results EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index (p = 0.005), longer prehospital duration (p = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission (p > 0.05). Conclusion Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.

Evaluation of Pelvic Circular Compression Devices in Severely Injured Trauma Patients with Pelvic Fractures

Background: The role of pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) is to temporarily stabilize the pelvic ring, reduce its volume and to tamponade bleeding. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of PCCDs on mortality and bleeding in severely injured trauma patients, using a large registry database. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients registered in the Trauma Register DGU® between 2015 and 2016. The study was limited to directly admitted patients who were alive on admission, with an injury severity score (ISS) of 9 or higher, with an Abbreviated Injury Scale AISpelvis of 3–5, aged at least 16, and with complete status documentation on pelvic circular compression devices (PCCD) and mortality. A cohort analysis was undertaken of patients suffering from relevant pelvic fractures. Data were collected on mortality and requirements for blood transfusion. The observed outcome was compared with the expected outcome as derived from version II of the Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC II) and adjusted accordingly. A Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) was also calculated. Results: A total of 9,910 patients were included. 1,103 of 9,910 patients suffered from a relevant pelvic trauma (AISpelvis = 3–5). Only 41% (454 cases) of these received a PCCD. PCCD application had no significant effect on mortality and did not decrease the need for blood transfusion in the multivariate regression analysis. However, in this cohort, the application of a PCCD is a general indicator for a critical patient with increased mortality (12.0% no PCCD applied vs. 23.2% PCCD applied prehospital vs. 27.1% PCCD applied in the emergency department). The ISS was higher in patients with PCCD (34.12 ± 16.4 vs. 27.9 ± 13.8; p < 0.001). Conclusion: PCCD was applied more often in patients with severe pelvic trauma according to ISS and AISpelvis as well with deterioration in circulatory status. PCCDs did not reduce mortality or reduce the need for blood transfusion. Trial registration: TR-DGU ID 2017-003, March 2017; German clinical trial register DRKS00024948

Application of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices in Pelvic Ring Fractures-Are Guidelines Followed in Daily Practice?

Early administration of a pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) is recommended for suspected pelvic trauma. This study was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of PCCD in patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the resuscitation room (RR) of a Level I trauma center. Furthermore, correct application of the PCCD as well as associated injuries with potential clinical sequelae were assessed. All patients with pelvic fractures assigned to the RR of a level one trauma center between 2016 and 2017 were evaluated retrospectively. Presence and position of the PCCD on the initial trauma scan were assessed and rated. Associated injuries with potential adverse effects on clinical outcome were analysed. Seventy-seven patients were included, of which 26 (34%) had a PCCD in place. Eighteen (23%) patients had an unstable fracture pattern of whom ten (56%) had received a PCCD. The PCCD was correctly placed in four (15%) cases, acceptable in 12 (46%) and incorrectly in ten (39%). Of all patients with pelvic fractures (n = 77, 100%) treated in the RR, only one third (n = 26, 34%) had a PCCD. In addition, 39% of PCCDs were positioned incorrectly. Of the patients with unstable pelvic fractures (n = 18, 100%), more than half either did not receive any PCCD (n = 8, 44%) or had one which was inadequately positioned (n = 2, 11 %). These results underline that preclinical and clinical education programs on PCCD indication and application should be critically reassessed.

Utilization of pre-hospital pelvic circumferential compression devices for pelvic fractures: survey of U.S. level I trauma centers

IntroductionThere is a lack of data on the use and effectiveness of pre-hospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) as a temporary intervention for pelvic fracture management; they are thought to decrease pelvic volume and hemorrhage but are not without risks. The purpose of this study is to examine pre-hospital PCCD practices at US Level I trauma centers.MethodsThis was a prospective cross-sectional survey of trauma medical directors at US Level I trauma centers. The aim of this study was to describe patterns of pre-hospital PCCD utilization for pelvic fractures. Responses were compared by region, length in time the center was designated Level I, trauma patient volume, pelvic management guideline followed and blood product guidelines. Data were compared using Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests.ResultsOf the 158 Level I trauma centers invited, 25% responded. All Level I trauma centers use in-hospital PCCDs, whereas 71% of participant’s paramedic agencies trained on pre-hospital PCCD application. Of those, 44% trained to apply pre-hospital PCCDs to all suspected pelvic fractures. A higher proportion of high-volume centers (77%) than low-volume centers (25%) trained on pre-hospital PCCD placement, p = 0.06. PCCD practices were not dependent on the trauma center’s region, trauma volume, length in time as a Level I trauma center, or pelvic fracture guideline followed.ConclusionsThere is widespread application of in-hospital and pre-hospital PCCD at US Level I trauma centers, however pre-hospital PCCDs are not applied to all suspected pelvic fractures. Future studies should focus on efficacy, safety, and contraindications for pre-hospital PCCDs.

Prehospital use of pelvic circumferential compression devices in a physician-based emergency medical service: A 6-year retrospective cohort study

Fractures of the pelvic ring are a potential source of significant bleeding. Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) can reduce and immobilize unstable fractures, but their hemostatic effect is unproven. Our aim was to assess the current practice of prehospital PCCD application and to identify factors available in the field predictive of significant pelvic ring injuries. All interventions (n = 13,435) in the Lausanne University Hospital Emergency Medical Service (EMS) were screened for PCCD placements from January 2008 to November 2014. Significant pelvic ring injuries (Tile types B or C) were considered as potentially benefitting from a PCCD. Data were extracted from the local prehospital registry. During the study period, 2366 trauma missions were performed. A PCCD was applied to 552/2366 (23%) patients. Significant pelvic ring injuries were present in 105/2366 (4.4%). Factors associated with the presence of significant pelvic ring injury were increased respiratory rate (OR 1.04), prolonged capillary refill time (OR 2.11), increased shock index (OR 3.91), pedestrians hit by a vehicle (OR 2.19), and presenting with falls from more than 2 m (OR 1.91). Among patients with a significant pelvic ring injury, a PCCD was placed in 79 (75%) and omitted in 26 (25%). One sixth of patients with a PCCD had a final diagnosis of significant pelvic ring injury. Further studies are needed to better understand which patient-, or accident-related factors are associated with prehospital PCCD omission among patients with significant pelvic ring injury.

Haemodynamics as a determinant of need for pre-hospital application of a pelvic circumferential compression device in adult trauma patients

IntroductionPelvic ring fractures are common following high-energy blunt trauma and can lead to substantial haemorrhage, morbidity and mortality. Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) improve position and stability of open-book type pelvic fracture, and can improve haemodynamics in patients with hypovolaemic shock. However, PCCDs may cause adverse outcomes including worsening of lateral compression fracture patterns and routine use is associated with high costs. Controversy regarding indication of PCCDs exists with some centres recommending PCCD in the setting of hypovolaemic shock compared to placement for any suspected pelvic injury. ObjectiveTo assess the need for PCCD application based on pre-hospital vital signs and mechanism of injury. MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted in a single adult major trauma centre examining a 2-year period. Patients were sub-grouped based on initial pre-hospital and emergency department observations as haemodynamically normal (heart rate <100 bpm, systolic blood pressure ≥100 mmHg and Glasgow Coma Scale ≥13) or abnormal. Diagnostic accuracy of pre-hospital haemodynamics as a predictor of pelvic fracture requiring intervention within 24 h was assessed. ResultsThere were 376 patients with PCCD in-situ on hospital arrival. Pelvic fractures were diagnosed in 137 patients (36.4%). Of these, 39 (28.5%) were haemodynamically normal and 98 (71.5%) were haemodynamically abnormal.The most common mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle collision (57.7%) and motorcycle collision (13.8%). Of those with fractures, 40 patients (29.2%) required pelvic intervention within 24 h of admission; of these, 8 (20%) were haemodynamically normal and 32 (80%) were haemodynamically abnormal. As a test for pelvic fracture requiring intervention within 24 h, abnormal pre-hospital haemodynamics had a sensitivity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.64-0.91), specificity of 0.32 (95% CI 0.27-0.38) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). Combined with absence of a major mechanism of injury, normal haemodynamics had a sensitivity 1.00, specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.36-0.66) and NPV of 1.00 for pelvic intervention within 24 h. ConclusionNormal haemodynamic status, combined with absence of major mechanism of injury can rule out requirement for urgent pelvic intervention. Ongoing surveillance is recommended to monitor for any adverse effects of this change in practice.

Improving the improvisational pelvic circumferential compression technique for open-book pelvic fractures using a simulation model and a sphygmomanometer

BackgroundOpen-book pelvic fractures are associated with significant mortality. Emergency management may require a commercial pelvic circumferential compression device to reduce the fracture and compress haemorrhaging pelvic vasculature. Standard, commercial, twin-sized...

Pelvic binder placement in a regional trauma centre

Background: Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) are a life-saving prehospital adjunct to trauma care. Correct positioning at the level of the trochanters maximises their efficacy. Methods: To examine the positioning of PCCDs in a regional trauma centre in England, a retrospective analysis of patients who had experienced major trauma was carried out over a 6-month period. The primary outcome of PCCD position was assessed using computerised tomography imaging and recorded as ‘high’, ‘centred’ or ‘low’ (depending on trochanter level). Secondary outcomes, including patient demographics, mechanism, pattern, number and types of injury were also collected. Results: Eighty-nine patients were identified with a PCCD in situ, in whom 28 (31%) devices were positioned too high and eight (10%) too low. There was no correlation between mechanism, pattern, number or type of injury and PCCD position. Conclusions: Despite published evidence on PCCD position and training for personnel, many PCCDs are still poorly placed. Further education for professionals involved in PCCD application is recommended.

Experience and Availability of Pelvic Binders at Swedish Trauma Units; A Nationwide Survey.

Objective:To assess availability, experience, and knowledge about the Pelvic Circumferential Compression Device (PCCD) in Sweden.Methods: A telephone interview with the current on-call trauma doctors at all trauma units in Sweden was conducted. After a short presentation and oral consent, the doctors were asked to answer four short questions. We asked the doctors to answer whether they knew if they had PCCDs available in their emergency room, how many times had they applied a PCCD, which is the correct level of application for a PCCD, and if a PCCD can stop arterial bleeding. Results:The on-call trauma doctors at the nine University hospitals, twenty-two General hospitals and twenty-one District General hospitals, with response rate of 100%, were interviewed. Availability of PCCD was 85 % and there was no difference between hospital types (p=0.546). In all hospitals 29/52 (56%) of those interviewed had used a PCCD at least once. There were significantly more doctors that had used a PCCD at least once in the University hospitals (8/9), compared to General hospitals (13/22) and District General hospitals (8/21) (p=0.034). A total of 43/52 (83 %) doctors defined the greater trochanters as the correct level of application for a PCCD. No difference was found when comparing hospitals (p=0.208). Only 22/52 (42 %) of doctors answered that a PCCD could not stop an arterial bleeding. No difference was found between hospitals (p=0.665)Conclusion:Less than half of the doctors knew that a PCCD cannot stop arterial bleeding, while the majority knew the correct level of application of a PCCD.

Application of Circumferential Compression Device (Binder) in Pelvic Injuries: Room for Improvement.

IntroductionThe use of a noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) to achieve pelvic stabilization by both decreasing pelvic volume and limiting inter-fragmentary motion has become commonplace, and is a well-established component of Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol in the treatment of pelvic ring injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the following: 1) how consistently a PCCD was placed on patients who arrived at our hospital with unstable pelvic ring injuries; 2) if they were placed in a timely manner; and 3) if hemodynamic instability influenced their use.MethodsWe performed an institutional review board-approved retrospective study on 112 consecutive unstable pelvic ring injuries, managed over a two-year period at our Level I trauma center. Our hospital electronic medical records were used to review EMT, physician, nurses’, operative notes and radiographic images, to obtain information on the injury and PCCD application. The injuries were classified by an orthopaedic trauma surgeon and a senior orthopaedic resident. Proper application of a pelvic binder using a sheet is demonstrated.ResultsOnly 47% of unstable pelvic fractures received PCCD placement, despite being the standard of care according to ATLS. Lateral compression mechanism pelvic injuries received PCCDs in 33% of cases, while anterior posterior compression (APC) and vertical shear (VS) injuries had applications in 63% of cases. Most of these PCCD devices were applied after imaging (72%). Hemodynamic instability did not influence PCCD application.ConclusionPCCD placement was missed in many (37%) of APC and VS mechanism injuries, where their application could have been critical to providing stability. Furthermore, to provide rapid stability, pelvic circumferential compression devices should be applied after secondary examination, rather than after receiving imaging results. Better education on timing and technique of PCCD placement at our institution is required to improve treatment of pelvic ring injuries.

Effectiveness of non invasive external pelvic compression: a systematic review of the literature.

IntroductionPelvic fractures might carry a significant risk of bleeding. A wide variety of pelvic binders together with pelvic sheets are available and offer an adjunct to the initial management of poly-trauma patients with pelvic injuries. These devices are collectively referred to as pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs). The aim of this study was to review the literature for evidence pertinent to the efficacy and safety of PCCDs.MethodsUsing the PRISMA guidelines a systematic search on PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus was carried out. Articles included were in English language and published between 1999 and 2015. Studies included were appraised with narrative data synthesis.ResultsSeven articles addressed mechanical properties of non-invasive external mechanical devices, six articles focused on physiological aspects, and three studies evaluated the pressure characteristics of these devices. We found 4 case reports regarding adverse effects. None of the studies identified addressed the cost effectiveness or pain relief issues related to the use of PCCDs.ConclusionsBased on available literature, PCCDs are widely used in the initial management of patients with suspected pelvic bleeding. There is evidence to suggest that external compression reduces disrupted pelvic rings. There are some complications reported following application of PCCDs. Hemorrhagic source and physiological effectiveness of PCCDs needs to be addressed in future studies. In the meantime judicious application of PCCDs will continue to be recommended.

Comparison of skin pressure measurements with the use of pelvic circumferential compression devices on pelvic ring injuries

ObjectivesPelvic circumferential compression devices are commonly used in the acute treatment of pelvic fractures for reduction of pelvic volume and initial stabilisation of the pelvic ring. There have been reports of catastrophic soft-tissue breakdown with their use. The aim of the current investigation was to determine whether various pelvic circumferential compression devices exert different amounts of pressure on the skin when applied with the force necessary to reduce the injury. The study hypothesis was that the device with the greatest surface area would have the lowest pressures on the soft-tissue. MethodsRotationally unstable pelvic injuries (OTA type 61-B) were surgically created in five fresh, whole human cadavers. The amount of displacement at the pubic symphysis was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). The T-POD, Pelvic Binder, Sam Sling, and circumferential sheet were applied in random order for testing. The devices were applied with enough force to obtain a reduction of less than 10mm of diastasis at the pubic symphysis. Pressure measurements, force required, and contact surface area were recorded with a Tekscan pressure mapping system. ResultsThe mean skin pressures observed ranged from 23 to 31kPa (173 to 233mm of Hg). The highest pressures were observed with the Sam Sling, but no statistically significant skin pressure differences were observed with any of the four devices (p>0.05). The Sam Sling also had the least mean contact area (590cm2). In greater than 70% of the trials, including all four devices tested, skin pressures exceeded what has been shown to be pressure high enough to cause skin breakdown (9.3kPa or 70mm of Hg). ConclusionsApplication of commercially available pelvic binders as well as circumferential sheeting commonly results in mean skin pressures that are considered to be above the threshold for skin breakdown. We therefore recommend that these devices only be used acutely, and definitive fixation or external fixation should be performed early as patient physiology allows. There may be some advantage of use of a simple sheet given its low cost, versatility, and ability to alter contact surface area.

A bed sheet is not as effective as a pelvic circumferential compression device in generating pelvic compression in patients with a suspected pelvic fracture

Introduction The Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol for emergent management of pelvic ring disruptions includes advising circumferential application of a bed sheet. A number of purpose-designed pelvic circumferential compression devices are commercially available. We assessed whether the Advanced Trauma Life Support-recommended simple bed sheet was able to generate the same pelvic pressure as provided by a pelvic circumferential compression device. Methods A healthy volunteer was laid supine on an examination trolley and a pressure transducer was placed overlying the volunteer’s greater trochanters. Two pelvic compression devices, a commercially available SAM Pelvic Sling II™ and a standard hospital bed sheet, were applied single handedly. The SAM Sling was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions and the bed sheet was applied in the way the participant felt best. The pressures generated at the level of the greater trochanters were measured at 2 min. The mean of the left and right pressures was recorded. Following removal of the first device, the second device was then placed and the pressures were again recorded at 2 min. Results Twelve participants completed the study. The mean (standard deviation) pressure generated by the SAM sling was 107 (28.4) mmHg and by the bed sheet 54 (26.3) mmHg; the SAM sling generated significantly greater pressure ( p &lt; 0.0001). A variety of different methods for applying the bed sheet were observed. Conclusion In patients with a suspected pelvic fracture, a bed sheet is unable to reliably generate pressures approaching those of a commercially available pelvic circumferential compression device.

Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers

IntroductionPatients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers. Materials and MethodsIn the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred. ResultsDuring the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P < .001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P = .024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P = .006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P = .018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P = .029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P = .018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. ConclusionPelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.

Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review.

Traumatic disruption of the pelvis can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. ATLS(®) guidance advocates temporary stabilisation or 'closure' of the disrupted pelvis with a compression device or sheet. We undertook a best evidence equipment review to assess the ease and efficacy of the application of two leading commercially available devices, the T-POD(®) and the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II. Fifty health care professionals and medical students participated in pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) education and assessment. Participants received a 10-min lecture on the epidemiology and aetiology of pelvic fractures and the principles of circumferential compression, followed by a practical demonstration. Three volunteers acted as trauma victims. Assessment included the time taken to secure the devices and whether this was achieved correctly. All participants completed a post-assessment survey. Both devices were applied correctly 100% of the time. The average time taken to secure the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was 18s and for the T-POD(®), it was 31s (p≤0.0001). Forty-four participants (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was easy to use compared to 84% (n=42) for the T-POD(®). Thirty-nine participants (78%) reported that they preferred and, given the choice in the future, would select the T-POD(®) over the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II (n=11, 22%). The results of this study indicate that both PCCDs are easy and acceptable to use and, once learned, can be applied easily and rapidly. Participants applied both devices correctly 100% of the time, with successful application taking, on average, less than 60s.