Yong E, Vasireddy A, Pavitt A, Davies G E, Lockey D J
Foundation Doctor, Institute of Pre-Hospital Care, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK.
Trauma & Orthopaedics Specialty Registrar (ST8) & Pre-Hospital Care Doctor, Institute of Pre-Hospital Care, Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB, UK.
Injury. 2016 Feb;47(2):383-8. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.08.023. Epub 2015 Aug 21.
Examination of missed injuries in our physician-led pre-hospital trauma service indicated that the significant injuries missed were often pelvic fractures. We therefore conducted a study whose aim was to evaluate the pre-hospital diagnostic accuracy of pelvic girdle injuries, and how this would be affected by implementing the pelvic injury treatment guidelines recently published by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care.
All blunt trauma patients attended in a 5-month period were included in the study. The presence or absence of pelvic girdle injury on computed tomography (CT) or, if unavailable, pelvic X-ray was used as a primary outcome measure. A retrospective database and case note review was conducted to identify patients who had pelvic binder applied in the study period. For the purposes of the study, pelvic ring and acetabular fractures were grouped together as patients with suspected pelvic girdle injury that should be fitted with a pelvic binder in the pre-hospital setting. The sensitivity and specificity, relating to the presence of pelvic girdle injury in patients with pelvic binders, was calculated in order to determine pre-hospital diagnostic accuracy.
785 patients were attended during the study period. 170 met the study inclusion criteria. 26 (15.3%) sustained a pelvic girdle injury. 45 (26.5%) had a pelvic binder applied. There were eight missed fractures (31%), of which the majority (six) sustained less severe injuries that were managed non-operatively. Two patients required operative fixation. Radiological images and/or reports were available on 169 (99.4%) patients. As a test of the presence of pelvic fracture, pelvic binder application had a sensitivity of 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.85) and a specificity of 0.81 (95% CI 0.74-0.87).
Even with a careful clinical assessment and a low threshold for binder application, this study highlights the problems of distracting injury when trying to diagnose and manage pelvic fractures. By implementing the pelvic treatment guidelines published by the Faculty of Pre-hospital Care, the missed injury rate could be reduced from 31% to 8%.
在我们由医生主导的院前创伤服务中,对漏诊损伤的检查表明,漏诊的严重损伤往往是骨盆骨折。因此,我们开展了一项研究,旨在评估骨盆环损伤的院前诊断准确性,以及实施院前护理学院最近发布的骨盆损伤治疗指南将如何影响这一准确性。
本研究纳入了在5个月期间就诊的所有钝性创伤患者。以计算机断层扫描(CT)或(若无法进行CT检查)骨盆X线检查结果显示有无骨盆环损伤作为主要结局指标。通过回顾性数据库和病例记录审查,确定在研究期间应用骨盆固定带的患者。为了本研究的目的,骨盆环骨折和髋臼骨折被归为疑似骨盆环损伤的患者,这些患者在院前应使用骨盆固定带。计算应用骨盆固定带患者中骨盆环损伤的敏感性和特异性,以确定院前诊断准确性。
研究期间共诊治785例患者。170例符合研究纳入标准。26例(15.3%)发生骨盆环损伤。45例(26.5%)应用了骨盆固定带。有8例骨折漏诊(31%),其中大多数(6例)损伤较轻,采用非手术治疗。2例患者需要手术固定。169例(99.4%)患者有影像学图像和/或报告。作为骨盆骨折存在与否的检测指标,应用骨盆固定带的敏感性为0.69(95%CI 0.50 - 0.85),特异性为0.81(95%CI 0.74 - 0.87)。
即使进行了仔细的临床评估且应用固定带的阈值较低,本研究仍凸显了在诊断和处理骨盆骨折时漏诊损伤的问题。通过实施院前护理学院发布的骨盆治疗指南,漏诊损伤率可从31%降至8%。