+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

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



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



American Journal of Emergency Medicine 31(10): 1432-1436



Patients 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. In 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. During 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. Pelvic 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.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 054909176

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23972479

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2013.06.044


Related references

Effectiveness and complications of pelvic circumferential compression devices in patients with unstable pelvic fractures: a systematic review of literature. Injury 40(10): 1031-1035, 2010

A bed sheet is not as effective as a pelvic circumferential compression device in generating pelvic compression in patients with a suspected pelvic fracture. Trauma 17(2): 128-133, 2015

Comparison of skin pressure measurements with the use of pelvic circumferential compression devices on pelvic ring injuries. Injury 47(3): 717-720, 2017

Improving the improvisational pelvic circumferential compression technique for open-book pelvic fractures using a simulation model and a sphygmomanometer. Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps 2019, 2019

Hemodynamic Deterioration in Lateral Compression Pelvic Fracture After Prehospital Pelvic Circumferential Compression Device Application. Air Medical Journal 36(5): 272-274, 2018

Measurements of the exerted pressure by pelvic circumferential compression devices. Open Orthopaedics Journal 4: 101-106, 2010

Comparison of three different pelvic circumferential compression devices: a biomechanical cadaver study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 93(3): 230-240, 2011

Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery 38(4): 439-442, 2012

Emergent management of pelvic ring fractures with use of circumferential compression. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 84-A Suppl 2: 43-47, 2002

Noninvasive reduction of open-book pelvic fractures by circumferential compression. Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma 16(6): 367-373, 2002

W380 Circumferential Abdominal-Pelvic Pressure Is Effective At Decreasing Pelvic Perfusion Without Additional Leg Compression. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 119: S827-S828, 2012

Randomised clinical trial comparing pressure characteristics of pelvic circumferential compression devices in healthy volunteers. Injury 42(10): 1020-1026, 2012

Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: Best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. BET 3: Pelvic circumferential compression devices for haemorrhage control: panacea or myth?. Emergency Medicine Journal 30(5): 425-426, 2013

The Concealment of Significant Pelvic Injuries on Computed Tomography Evaluation by Pelvic Compression Devices. Journal of Emergency Medicine 49(5): 675-678, 2016

Effects of early use of external pelvic compression on transfusion requirements and mortality in pelvic fractures. American Journal of Surgery 194(6): 720-3; Discussion 723, 2007