Sadri Hassan, Nguyen-Tang Thai, Stern Richard, Hoffmeyer Pierre, Peter Robin
Orthopaedic Surgery Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Switzerland.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005 Sep;125(7):443-7. doi: 10.1007/s00402-005-0821-7.
Hemorrhage is the leading cause of death in patients with a pelvic fracture. The majority of blood loss derives from injured retroperitoneal veins and broad cancellous bone surfaces. The emergency management of multiply injured patients with pelvic ring disruption and severe hemorrhage remains controversial. Although it is well accepted that the displaced pelvic ring injury must be rapidly reduced and stabilized, the methods by which control of hemorrhagic shock is achieved remain under discussion. It has been proposed to exclusively use external pelvic ring stabilization for control of hemorrhage by producing a 'tamponade effect' of the pelvis. However, the frequency of clinically important arterial bleeding after external fixation of the pelvic ring remains unclear. We therefore undertook this retrospective review to attempt to answer this one important question: How frequently is arterial embolization necessary to control hemorrhage and restore hemodynamic stability after external pelvic ring fixation?
We performed a retrospective review of 55 consecutive patients who presented with unstable types B and C pelvic ring fractures. Those patients designated as being in hemorrhagic shock (defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg after receiving 2 L of intravenous crystalloid) were treated by application of the pelvic C-clamp. Patients who remained in hemorrhagic shock, or were determined to be in severe shock (defined as mandatory catecholamines or more than 12 blood transfusions over 2 h), underwent therapeutic angiography within 24 h in order to control bleeding.
Fourteen patients were identified as being hemodynamically unstable (ISS 30.1 +/- 11.3 points) and were treated with a C-clamp. In those patients with persistent hemodynamic instability, arterial embolization was performed. After C-clamp application, 5 of 14 patients required therapeutic angiography to control bleeding. Two patients died, one from multiple sources of bleeding and the other from an open pelvic fracture (total mortality 2/14, 14%).
Although the C-clamp is effective in controlling hemorrhage, one must be aware of the need for arterial embolization to restore hemodynamic stability in a select subgroup of patients.
出血是骨盆骨折患者死亡的主要原因。大部分失血源于受伤的腹膜后静脉和广阔的松质骨表面。合并骨盆环断裂和严重出血的多发伤患者的急诊处理仍存在争议。尽管人们普遍认为移位的骨盆环损伤必须迅速复位并固定,但实现出血性休克控制的方法仍在讨论中。有人提议仅使用骨盆外固定环来控制出血,通过产生骨盆的“填塞效应”。然而,骨盆环外固定后临床上重要的动脉出血频率尚不清楚。因此,我们进行了这项回顾性研究,试图回答这个重要问题:骨盆外固定环固定后,控制出血并恢复血流动力学稳定性需要进行动脉栓塞的频率有多高?
我们对55例连续出现不稳定B型和C型骨盆环骨折的患者进行了回顾性研究。那些被判定为处于出血性休克(定义为在输注2升静脉晶体液后收缩压低于90 mmHg)的患者接受了骨盆C形夹固定治疗。仍处于出血性休克或被判定为处于严重休克(定义为必须使用儿茶酚胺或在2小时内输血超过12单位)的患者,在24小时内接受治疗性血管造影以控制出血。
14例患者被确定为血流动力学不稳定(损伤严重度评分30.1±11.3分),并接受了C形夹固定治疗。在那些血流动力学持续不稳定的患者中,进行了动脉栓塞。应用C形夹后,14例患者中有5例需要进行治疗性血管造影以控制出血。2例患者死亡,1例死于多处出血,另1例死于开放性骨盆骨折(总死亡率2/14,14%)。
尽管C形夹在控制出血方面有效,但必须意识到在特定亚组患者中需要进行动脉栓塞以恢复血流动力学稳定性。