Suppr超能文献

骨盆 C 型夹与骨盆固定带在 C 型骨盆环骨折急救稳定及止血中的比较。

Comparison of pelvic C-clamp and pelvic binder for emergency stabilization and bleeding control in type-C pelvic ring fractures.

机构信息

Department for Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center, University of Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstraße 95, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.

Department of Trauma Surgery, BG Trauma Center, Murnau am Staffelsee, Germany.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2021 Jan 27;11(1):2338. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-81745-z.

Abstract

Severe bleeding is the major cause of death in unstable pelvic ring fractures. Therefore, a quick and efficient emergency stabilization and bleeding control is inevitable. C-clamp and pelvic binder are efficient tools for temporary bleeding control, especially from the posterior pelvic ring. Yet the C-clamp requires more user knowledge, training and equipment. However, whether this makes up for a more efficient bleeding control, is still under debate. Patients with a type-C pelvic ring fracture were identified from the German Pelvic Registry (GPR) and divided into three groups of 40 patients (1. no emergency stabilization, 2. pelvic binder, 3. C-clamp). The matching occurred according to the parameters age, gender, initial RR and initial HB. Complication-and mortality rates were compared especially regarding bleeding control. Regarding ISS and fracture dislocation there was no difference. The use of the C-clamp resulted in more complications, a higher mortality rate due to severe bleeding and more blood transfusions were admitted. Moreover the pelvic binder was established noticeably faster. However, the C-clamp was more often rated as effective. There is no evidence of advantage comparing the C-clamp to the pelvic binder, regarding bleeding control in type-C pelvic ring fractures. In fact, using the pelvic binder even showed better results, as the time until established bleeding control was significantly shorter. Therefore, the pelvic binder should be the first choice. The C-clamp should remain a measure for selected cases only, if an adequate bleeding control cannot be achieved by the pelvic binder.

摘要

严重出血是不稳定骨盆环骨折患者死亡的主要原因。因此,快速有效地进行紧急稳定和止血是必不可少的。C 型夹和骨盆固定带是临时止血的有效工具,尤其是在后骨盆环。然而,C 型夹需要更多的用户知识、培训和设备。然而,这是否能实现更有效的止血效果仍存在争议。从德国骨盆登记处(GPR)中确定了骨盆环 C 型骨折的患者,并将其分为 3 组,每组 40 例(1. 无紧急稳定,2. 骨盆固定带,3. C 型夹)。根据年龄、性别、初始 RR 和初始 HB 等参数进行匹配。比较并发症和死亡率,特别是止血效果。在 ISS 和骨折脱位方面没有差异。使用 C 型夹会导致更多的并发症,由于严重出血导致的死亡率更高,并且需要更多的输血。此外,骨盆固定带的固定速度明显更快。然而,C 型夹被认为更有效。在骨盆环 C 型骨折的止血控制方面,与骨盆固定带相比,C 型夹没有优势。事实上,使用骨盆固定带的效果更好,因为达到止血控制的时间明显更短。因此,骨盆固定带应作为首选。如果骨盆固定带不能有效止血,C 型夹应仅作为一种选择措施。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/309b/7840902/d1f1fe1ffc4f/41598_2021_81745_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验