Evidence Hub

Bilateral Internal Iliac Artery Embolization Results in an Unacceptably High Rate of Complications in Patients Requiring Pelvic/Acetabular Surgery

Lindvall E, Davis J, Martirosian A, Garcia G, Husak L

Journal of orthopaedic trauma, 2018

61 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess complication rates in patients undergoing open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of pelvic/acetabular fractures with and without pelvic angiography embolization (PAE).

DESIGN: Retrospective case series.

SETTING: Level 1 Trauma Center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One hundred eleven patients with pelvic or acetabular fractures that required orthopaedic fixation.

INTERVENTION: Retrospective analysis of outcomes in patients who underwent ORIF of pelvic/acetabular fractures with and without PAE.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Comparison of surgical wound infections, necrosis, and/or fracture nonunions between the PAE group and a control group (no PAE).

RESULTS: Final study groups consisted of 50 patients in the PAE group and 61 patients in the control group. Ninety-six percent of patients underwent nonselective PAE. Significantly higher complications were noted in the PAE group than in the control group (20% compared with 4.9%; P = 0.020). In addition, posterior surgical approaches combined with internal iliac artery embolization represented the highest complication rate.

CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring PAE and pelvic/acetabular ORIF should undergo a multidisciplinary treatment approach with the trauma surgeon, interventional radiologist, and orthopaedic surgeon before PAE being performed to decrease complications and avoid nonselective bilateral internal iliac artery embolization.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 61 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free