Lustenberger Thomas, Walcher Felix, Lefering Rolf, Schweigkofler Uwe, Wyen Hendrik, Marzi Ingo, Wutzler Sebastian
Department of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor Stern Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Department of Trauma, University Hospital, Leipziger Str. 44, Magdeburg A.Ö.R., Germany.
World J Surg. 2016 Dec;40(12):3073-3079. doi: 10.1007/s00268-016-3647-2.
This study assesses the incidence of missed pelvic injuries in the pre-hospital setting.
All blunt trauma patients (ISS ≥ 9) with pre-hospital suspicion of and/or radiologically proven pelvic fracture documented in the TraumaRegister DGU (TR-DGU) of the German Trauma Society DGU (2002-2011) were identified and retrospectively analyzed. Patients with a missed pelvic injury in the pre-hospital period were compared with those who were correctly identified.
Of the 11,062 patients included, 7201 patients (65.1 %) had a pelvic fracture diagnosed on hospital admission. In 44.1 % (n = 3178) of the patients with confirmed pelvic fracture, no pelvic injury was suspected pre-clinically (overall sensitivity of the pre-hospital pelvic examination: 55.9 %). For type B and C pelvic fractures, 40.5 % and 32.3 %, respectively, were not suspected in the pre-hospital environment. Patients with a not-suspected pelvic injury were significantly more likely to have been involved in a motor vehicle accident, to have a GCS ≤ 8, to be intubated at the scene and to have an ISS of ≥25 (all p < 0.05). Independent risk factors for missing a pelvic injury in the pre-hospital setting were an AIS head ≥3, a GCS ≤ 8 and age above 60 years. The presence of hypotension (SBP ≤ 90 mmHg) as well as a high overall injury severity (ISS ≥ 25) decreased the risk of missing a pelvic injury.
A significant proportion of severe pelvic fractures type B and C were not suspected in the pre-hospital setting. Therefore, in severely injured blunt trauma patients, a mechanical pelvic stabilization in the pre-hospital environment, irrespective of the findings of the physical examination of the pelvis, should be considered.
本研究评估了院前环境中骨盆损伤漏诊的发生率。
在德国创伤协会DGU的创伤登记数据库(TR-DGU,2002 - 2011年)中,识别出所有院前怀疑有和/或经放射学证实有骨盆骨折的钝性创伤患者(损伤严重度评分[ISS]≥9),并进行回顾性分析。将院前期间骨盆损伤漏诊的患者与正确诊断的患者进行比较。
在纳入的11,062例患者中,7201例患者(65.1%)入院时被诊断为骨盆骨折。在确诊骨盆骨折的患者中,44.1%(n = 3178)临床前未怀疑有骨盆损伤(院前骨盆检查的总体敏感度:55.9%)。对于B型和C型骨盆骨折,院前环境中分别有40.5%和32.3%未被怀疑。骨盆损伤未被怀疑的患者更有可能发生机动车事故、格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)≤8、在现场进行气管插管以及ISS≥25(所有p < 0.05)。院前环境中漏诊骨盆损伤的独立危险因素为简明损伤定级(AIS)头部评分≥3、GCS≤8以及年龄大于60岁。低血压(收缩压≤90 mmHg)以及高总体损伤严重度(ISS≥25)降低了漏诊骨盆损伤的风险。
院前环境中未怀疑到相当一部分严重的B型和C型骨盆骨折。因此,对于严重钝性创伤患者,无论骨盆体格检查结果如何,均应考虑在院前环境中进行机械性骨盆固定。