Introduction: Patients with complex pelvic fractures with uncontrollable haemorrhage have a very mortality from pelvic haemorrhage and associated injuries. Management remains controversial and includes an number of techniques including pelvic stabilisation, angiography and direct surgical control of haemorrhage.
Purpose of the study: These fractures, and the patients, are generally unstable. Mortality associated with these fractures remains high. It is mainly due to the haemorrhagic risk of the presacral venous plexus and the iliac system. Different techniques have been described to control the haemorrhage: pelvic girdle, embolisation, ligature of the iliac arteries,
Background: Unstable pelvic ring fractures are frequently associated with severe hemodynamic instability and mortality. Hemorrhage control of these disrupted pelvic fractures requires an urgent reduction of the intrapelvic volume and immediate mechanical stabilization. The aim of this study was to investigate the control of the intrapelvic volume and pelvic stability by different modes of external stabilization in a cadaver model. Methods: Various degrees of pelvic ring instability were induced in unembalmed human torsos. Haemorrhage induced volume displacement into the presacral and retroperitoneal space (RPP) was assessed by positioning two infusion lines right in front of the sacroiliac joint. The abdominal pressure measurement (IAP) was obtained by a percutaneous catheter in the abdominal cavity. Baseline pressure measurements of the intra pelvic volume were documented before and after dissection for uni-as bilateral instability. Reduction of pelvic instability was performed by non invasive T-POD. ®. Pelvic Stabilizer, a supraacetabular, iliac crest fixator, application of the pelvic C-Clamp without and with
Aim: To investigate the training of civilian Orthopaedic Trainee’s in complex trauma management. Methods: A web-based survey of orthopaedic trainees utilising three scenarios for investigating complex trauma management. 225 responses obtained, achieving a <
0.05 error rate with 90% confidence. Results:.