Evidence Hub

Retroperitoneal pelvic packing for haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures in children and adolescents: a level-one trauma-centre experience

Chao NS, Liu CS, Chung KL, Tang PM, Tai DK, Lee KY, Chang A, Leung MW et al.

Journal of pediatric surgery, 2012

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aims to review the outcomes of haemodynamically unstable paediatric patients with pelvic fractures undergoing protocol intervention of retroperitoneal pelvic packing (RPP) with external fixation and angiography.

METHODS: From 2004 to 2011, consecutive patients younger than 19 years treated in our centre for haemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures were retrospectively reviewed. From 2008, protocol intervention triad of external fixation, RPP, and angiography with embolization was implemented.

RESULTS: Before 2008, only 2 boys with fall injuries received intervention. One received initial angiography showing extravasation near iliac bifurcation. Laparotomy proceeded without embolization for multiple visceral injuries, but he succumbed postoperatively. The other had persistent bleeding after external fixation but became stabilized after embolization. After 2008 protocol implementation, 5 youngsters received the triad of interventions for unstable pelvic fractures. Mean age was 15.4 yrs. The mean injury severity score was 42 (18-66) with 62.5% mean probability of survival (6.8-98.8%). The mean operating time for RPP was 23 mins (20-35 mins). One boy died of rapid exanguination intraoperatively. The other 4 youngsters recovered for rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION: Fall from heights is a major cause for severe pelvic injuries in our locality. RPP is a simple effective procedure to include in protocol intervention for pelvic fractures. This case series suggests it…

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.

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