ArticleDer Anaesthesist2018
[Positioning of external pelvic stabilization devices in patients with multiple injuries : Retrospective computed tomographic evaluation].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere hemorrhage is a dreaded complication of pelvic fractures. It has a significant impact on early trauma-associated mortality. Hemorrhage that is secondary to pelvic fractures can be reduced by external stabilization devices. Despite the commercial availability of many different systems, they are infrequently used. The aim of this computed tomography (CT) study was to examine the use of external pelvic stabilization devices.
methodsBetween 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015 a total of 982 images produced in CT trauma scans at a level 1 trauma centre were retrospectively examined with respect to the presence of external pelvic stabilizers. The type of device applied, its actual position including deviation from optimal position as well as pelvic parameters and complications were determined.
resultsIn 67 out of 982 patients (6.82%) with suspected multiple trauma, an external pelvic stabilizer was employed. In 41.8% the devices were not placed in concordance with prevailing scientific knowledge, 53.73% of devices did not comply with the manufacturer's instructions and 51.85% of systems with pneumatic cuffs caused significant malrotation. In one patient the cuff induced hypoperfusion of the leg but without further sequelae.
conclusionWhile the prehospital use of pelvic slings is increasing, misplacement is very common. Especially inconsistencies between manufacturers' manuals and current scientific knowledge warrant further improvement. In systems with pneumatic cuffs malrotation of the device is common and clinically relevant. Hypoperfusion of the lower extremities is possible and should be taken into account when employing these devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.