Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38225602›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2024

Imposter or knight in shining armor? Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) for severe pelvic injuries in patients with multiple trauma: a trauma-registry analysis.

H Trentzsch, R Lefering, U Schweigkofler, TraumaRegister DGU

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Transferrals and clinical pathways of unstable pelvic fractures over the last 10 years - a retrospective analysis of the Trauma Register DGUEuropean journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Unstable pelvic fractures in patients with hemodynamic instability: global treatment controversies.OTA international : the open access journal of orthopaedic trauma · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Hemorrhage control in pelvic ring injuries: the role of PCCDs and other acute measures in Germany.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

H TrentzschInstitut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, Munich, Germany. heiko.trentzsch@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-6873
R LeferingInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, University Witten/Herdecke, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0141-1747
U SchweigkoflerDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Unfallklinik Frankfurt Am Main Friedberger, Landstr. 430, 60389, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9863-9109
TraumaRegister DGU
Berufsgenossenschaftliche Unfallklinik Frankfurt am Main · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPelvic Circumferential Compression Devices (PCCD) are standard in hemorrhage-control of unstable pelvic ring fractures (UPF). Controversial data on their usefulness exists. Aim of the study was to investigate whether prehospital application of PCCD can reduce mortality and transfusion requirements in UPF.

methodsRetrospective cohort study. From 2016 until 2021, 63,371 adult severely injured patients were included into TraumaRegister DGU

resultsOverall UPF incidence was 9% (N = 5880) and PCCD use increased over time (7.5% to 20.4%). Of all cases with UPF, 40.2% received PCCD and of all cases with PCCD application, 61% had no pelvic injury at all. PCCD patients were more severely injured and had higher rates of shock or transfusion. 24-h.-mortality and hospital mortality were higher with PCCD (10.9% vs. 9.3%; p = 0.033; 17.9% vs. 16.1%, p = 0.070). Hospital mortality with PCCD was 1% lower than predicted. SMR was in favor of PCCD but failed statistical significance (0.95 vs. 1.04, p = 0.101). 1,860 propensity score matched pairs were analyzed: NoPCCD-patients received more often catecholamines (19.6% vs. 18.5%, p = 0.043) but required less surgical pelvic stabilization in the emergency room (28.6% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality or transfusion requirements.

conclusionWe observed PCCD overuse in general and underuse in UPF. Prehospital PCCD appears to be more a marker of injury severity and less triggered by presence of UPF. We found no salutary effect on survival or transfusion requirements. Inappropriate indication and technical flaw may have biased our results. TR-DGU does not contain data on these aspects. Further studies are necessary. Modular add-on questioners to the registry could offer one possible solution to overcome this limitation. We are concerned that PCCD use may be unfairly discredited by misinterpretation of the available evidence and strongly vote for a prospective trial.

Indexed as

Fractures, BoneMultiple TraumaAdultGermanyHumansInjury Severity ScoreRegistriesRetrospective StudiesAdvanced trauma life support careEmergency medical servicesEmergency treatmentMultiple traumaPelvic binderPelvic ring injuryRegistries

Identifiers

PMID38225602
PMCPMC10790519
OpenAlexW4390893491

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.