Pelvic fracture pattern predicts the need for hemorrhage control intervention-Results of an AAST multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients with pelvic fractures at risk of severe bleeding requiring intervention is critical. We performed a multi-institutional study to test our hypothesis that pelvic fracture patterns predict the need for a pelvic hemorrhage control intervention. METHODS: This prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolled patients with pelvic fracture due to blunt trauma. Inclusion criteria included shock on admission (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or heart rate >120 beats/min and base deficit >5, and the ability to review pelvic imaging). Demographic data, open pelvic fracture, blood transfusion, pelvic hemorrhage control intervention (angioembolization, external fixator, pelvic packing, and/or REBOA [resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta]), and mortality were recorded. Pelvic fracture pattern was classified according to Young-Burgess in a blinded fashion. Predictors of pelvic hemorrhage control intervention and mortality were analyzed by univariate and multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients presenting in shock were enrolled from 11 Level I trauma centers. The most common pelvic fracture pattern was lateral compression I, followed by lateral compression I, and vertical shear. Of the 12 patients with an anterior-posterior compression III fracture, 10 (83%) required a pelvic hemorrhage control intervention. Factors associated with the need for pelvic fracture hemorrhage control intervention on univariate analysis included vertical shear pelvic fracture pattern, increasing age, and transfusion of blood products. Anterior-posterior compression III fracture patterns and open pelvic fracture predicted the need for pelvic hemorrhage control intervention on multivariate analysis. Overall in-hospital mortality for patients admitted in shock with pelvic fracture was 30% and did not differ based on pelvic fracture pattern on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Blunt trauma patients admitted in shock with anterior-posterior compression III fracture patterns or patients with open pelvic fracture are at greatest risk of bleeding requiring pelvic hemorrhage control intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.

Current management of hemorrhage from severe pelvic fractures: Results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus as to the optimal treatment paradigm for patients presenting with hemorrhage from severe pelvic fracture. This study was established to determine the methods of hemorrhage control currently being used in clinical practice. METHODS: This prospective, observational multi-center study enrolled patients with pelvic fracture from blunt trauma. Demographic data, admission vital signs, presence of shock on admission (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg or heart rate > 120 beats per minute or base deficit < -5), method of hemorrhage control, transfusion requirements, and outcome were collected. RESULTS: A total of 1,339 patients with pelvic fracture were enrolled from 11 Level I trauma centers. Fifty-seven percent of the patients were male, with a mean ± SD age of 47.1 ± 21.6 years, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 19.2 ± 12.7. In-hospital mortality was 9.0 %. Angioembolization and external fixator placement were the most common method of hemorrhage control used. A total of 128 patients (9.6%) underwent diagnostic angiography with contrast extravasation noted in 63 patients. Therapeutic angioembolization was performed on 79 patients (5.9%). There were 178 patients (13.3%) with pelvic fracture admitted in shock with a mean ± SD ISS of 28.2 ± 14.1. In the shock group, 44 patients (24.7%) underwent angiography to diagnose a pelvic source of bleeding with contrast extravasation found in 27 patients. Thirty patients (16.9%) were treated with therapeutic angioembolization. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta was performed on five patients in shock and used by only one of the participating centers. Mortality was 32.0% for patients with pelvic fracture admitted in shock. CONCLUSION: Patients with pelvic fracture admitted in shock have high mortality. Several methods were used for hemorrhage control with significant variation across institutions. The use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta may prove to be an important adjunct in the treatment of patients with severe pelvic fracture in shock; however, it is in the early stages of evaluation and not currently used widely across trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II; therapeutic study, level III.

Prospective derivation of a clinical decision rule for thoracolumbar spine evaluation after blunt trauma: An American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multi-Institutional Trials Group Study.

BACKGROUND: Unlike the cervical spine (C-spine), where National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-spine Rules can be used, evidence-based thoracolumbar spine (TL-spine) clearance guidelines do not exist. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical decision rule for evaluating the TL-spine after injury. METHODS: Adult (≥15 years) blunt trauma patients were prospectively enrolled at 13 US trauma centers (January 2012 to January 2014). Exclusion criteria included the following: C-spine injury with neurologic deficit, preexisting paraplegia/tetraplegia, and unevaluable examination. Remaining evaluable patients underwent TL-spine imaging and were followed up to discharge. The primary end point was a clinically significant TL-spine injury requiring TL-spine orthoses or surgical stabilization. Regression techniques were used to develop a clinical decision rule. Decision rule performance in identifying clinically significant fractures was tested. RESULTS: Of 12,479 patients screened, 3,065 (24.6%) met inclusion criteria (mean [SD] age, 43.5 [19.8] years [range, 15-103 years]; male sex, 66.3%; mean [SD] Injury Severity Score [ISS], 8.8 [7.5]). The majority underwent computed tomography (93.3%), 6.3% only plain films, and 0.2% magnetic resonance imaging exclusively. TL-spine injury was identified in 499 patients (16.3%), of which 264 (8.6%) were clinically significant (29.2% surgery, 70.8% TL-spine orthosis). The majority was AO Type A1 282 (56.5%), followed by 67 (13.4%) A3, 43 (8.6%) B2, and 32 (6.4%) A4 injuries. The predictive ability of clinical examination (pain, midline tenderness, deformity, neurologic deficit), age, and mechanism was examined; positive clinical examination finding resulted in a sensitivity of 78.4% and a specificity of 72.9%. Addition of age of 60 years or older and high-risk mechanism (fall, crush, motor vehicle crash with ejection/rollover, unenclosed vehicle crash, auto vs. pedestrian) increased sensitivity to 98.9% with specificity of 29.0% for clinically significant injuries and 100.0% sensitivity and 27.3% specificity for injuries requiring surgery. CONCLUSION: Clinical examination alone is insufficient for determining the need for imaging in evaluable patients at risk of TL-spine injury. Addition of age and high-risk mechanism results in a clinical decision-making rule with a sensitivity of 98.9% for clinically significant injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, level III.