TY - JOUR
T1 - Standard practice in the treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries
T2 - an international survey
AU - SICOT Trauma Research Group
AU - Klingebiel, Felix Karl Ludwig
AU - Hasegawa, Morgan
AU - Parry, Joshua
AU - Balogh, Zsolt J.
AU - Sen, Ramesh Kumar
AU - Kalbas, Yannik
AU - Teuben, Michel
AU - Halvachizadeh, Sascha
AU - Pape, Hans Christoph
AU - Pfeifer, Roman
AU - Al-Rouk, Turki Bashir
AU - Ganse, Bergita
AU - Hanschen, Marc
AU - Hasani, Ilir
AU - Klingebiel, Felix Karl Ludwig
AU - Korobushkin, Gleb
AU - Kumabe, Yohei
AU - McCaul, Jeannie
AU - Rashed, Mohamed
AU - Saveski, Jordan
AU - Sharma, Hemant
AU - Zarti, Mohammed
AU - Pfeifer, Roman
AU - Zelle, Boris A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Purpose: Unstable pelvic ring injury can result in a life-threatening situation and lead to long-term disability. Established classification systems, recently emerged resuscitative and treatment options as well as techniques, have facilitated expansion in how these injuries can be studied and managed. This study aims to access practice variation in the management of unstable pelvic injuries around the globe. Methods: A standardized questionnaire including 15 questions was developed by experts from the SICOT trauma committee (Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie) and then distributed among members. The survey was conducted online for one month in 2022 with 358 trauma surgeons, encompassing responses from 80 countries (experience > 5 years = 79%). Topics in the questionnaire included surgical and interventional treatment strategies, classification, staging/reconstruction procedures, and preoperative imaging. Answer options for treatment strategies were ranked on a 4-point rating scale with following options: (1) always (A), (2) often (O), (3) seldom (S), and (4) never (N). Stratification was performed according to geographic regions (continents). Results: The Young and Burgess (52%) and Tile/AO (47%) classification systems were commonly used. Preoperative three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scans were utilized by 93% of respondents. Rescue screws (RS), C-clamps (CC), angioembolization (AE), and pelvic packing (PP) were observed to be rarely implemented in practice (A + O: RS = 24%, CC = 25%, AE = 21%, PP = 25%). External fixation was the most common method temporized fixation (A + O = 71%). Percutaneous screw fixation was the most common definitive fixation technique (A + O = 57%). In contrast, 3D navigation techniques were rarely utilized (A + O = 15%). Most standards in treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries are implemented equally across the globe. The greatest differences were observed in augmented techniques to bleeding control, such as angioembolization and REBOA, more commonly used in Europe (both), North America (both), and Oceania (only angioembolization). Conclusion: The Young-Burgess and Tile/AO classifications are used approximately equally across the world. Initial non-invasive stabilization with binders and temporary external fixation are commonly utilized, while specific haemorrhage control techniques such as pelvic packing and angioembolization are rarely and REBOA almost never considered. The substantial regional differences’ impact on outcomes needs to be further explored.
AB - Purpose: Unstable pelvic ring injury can result in a life-threatening situation and lead to long-term disability. Established classification systems, recently emerged resuscitative and treatment options as well as techniques, have facilitated expansion in how these injuries can be studied and managed. This study aims to access practice variation in the management of unstable pelvic injuries around the globe. Methods: A standardized questionnaire including 15 questions was developed by experts from the SICOT trauma committee (Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie) and then distributed among members. The survey was conducted online for one month in 2022 with 358 trauma surgeons, encompassing responses from 80 countries (experience > 5 years = 79%). Topics in the questionnaire included surgical and interventional treatment strategies, classification, staging/reconstruction procedures, and preoperative imaging. Answer options for treatment strategies were ranked on a 4-point rating scale with following options: (1) always (A), (2) often (O), (3) seldom (S), and (4) never (N). Stratification was performed according to geographic regions (continents). Results: The Young and Burgess (52%) and Tile/AO (47%) classification systems were commonly used. Preoperative three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scans were utilized by 93% of respondents. Rescue screws (RS), C-clamps (CC), angioembolization (AE), and pelvic packing (PP) were observed to be rarely implemented in practice (A + O: RS = 24%, CC = 25%, AE = 21%, PP = 25%). External fixation was the most common method temporized fixation (A + O = 71%). Percutaneous screw fixation was the most common definitive fixation technique (A + O = 57%). In contrast, 3D navigation techniques were rarely utilized (A + O = 15%). Most standards in treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries are implemented equally across the globe. The greatest differences were observed in augmented techniques to bleeding control, such as angioembolization and REBOA, more commonly used in Europe (both), North America (both), and Oceania (only angioembolization). Conclusion: The Young-Burgess and Tile/AO classifications are used approximately equally across the world. Initial non-invasive stabilization with binders and temporary external fixation are commonly utilized, while specific haemorrhage control techniques such as pelvic packing and angioembolization are rarely and REBOA almost never considered. The substantial regional differences’ impact on outcomes needs to be further explored.
KW - Damage control
KW - Emergency strategies
KW - Pelvic ring injuries
KW - Surgical treatment strategy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85162069731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85162069731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00264-023-05859-x
DO - 10.1007/s00264-023-05859-x
M3 - Article
C2 - 37328569
AN - SCOPUS:85162069731
SN - 0341-2695
VL - 47
SP - 2301
EP - 2318
JO - International Orthopaedics
JF - International Orthopaedics
IS - 9
ER -