SynthesisEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society2024
Arterial angioembolisation versus pre-peritoneal pelvic packing in haemodynamically unstable patients with complex pelvic fractures: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence and impact of urogenital sequelae in women following pelvic-ring injuries: a retrospective cohort study.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Unstable pelvic fractures in patients with hemodynamic instability: global treatment controversies.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025Article
- Predictive parameters for early detection of clinically relevant abdominal trauma in multiple-injury or polytraumatised patients: a retrospective analysis.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAngioembolisation (AE) and/or pre-peritoneal pelvic packing (PPP) may be necessary for patients with complex pelvic fractures who are haemodynamically unstable. However, it remains unclear whether AE or PPP should be performed as an initial intervention and ongoing debates exist. This meta-analysis aimed to compare AE versus PPP in haemodynamically unstable patients with acute pelvic fractures. The primary outcomes of interest were to compare in-hospital mortality rate and number of blood units transfused. Secondary outcomes included evaluating differences in the time from diagnosis to treatment, as well as the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital.
methodsAll clinically relevant studies comparing AE versus PPP in patients with complex pelvic fractures and haemodynamic instability were accessed. The 2020 PRISMA guidelines were followed. In September 2023, the following databases were accessed: PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase, without constraint.
resultsData from 320 patients were collected (AE: 174; PPP: 146). The mean age on admission was 47.4 ± 7.2 years. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) on admission was 43.5 + 5.4 points. Baseline comparability was observed in ISS (P = 0.5, Table 3) and mean age (P = 0.7, Table 3). No difference was reported in mortality rate (P = 0.2) or rate of blood units transfused (P = 0.3). AE had a longer mean time to the procedure of 44.6 min compared to PPP (P = 0.04). The mean length of ICU and hospital stay were similar in both groups.
conclusionDespite the longer mean time from admission to the procedure, no significant differences were found between AE and PPP in terms of in-hospital mortality, blood units transfused, or length of ICU, and hospital stay. These findings should be interpreted considering the limitations of the present study. High-quality comparative research is strongly warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, meta-analysis.
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.