协议化的方法为严重骨盆创伤患者提供了良好的结果。

Majid Anwer, Dinesh Bagaria, Narendra Choudhary, Abhinav Kumar, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Sushma Sagar, Amit Gupta, Biplab Mishra, Subodh Kumar
{"title":"协议化的方法为严重骨盆创伤患者提供了良好的结果。","authors":"Majid Anwer, Dinesh Bagaria, Narendra Choudhary, Abhinav Kumar, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Sushma Sagar, Amit Gupta, Biplab Mishra, Subodh Kumar","doi":"10.25259/NMJI_464_2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Pelvic fractures are often a result of injuries caused by a major force and lead to considerable morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in acute management protocols involving angioembolization as a prime intervention, mortality in complex pelvic fractures remains high. We analysed our experience with the outcomes of a pelvic trauma management protocol using surgical haemostatic techniques over 5 years. Methods We did a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with pelvic factures from January 2014 to December 2018. Demographic profile, clinical details, imaging findings, operative details and outcomes were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors predicting poor outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures. Results A total of 501 patients with pelvic fractures were included, predominantly male (376; 75%), with a mean (SD) age of 34 (13.1) years. Road traffic accidents were the most common cause of injury (362; 72.3%). On presentation, 76 (15.2%) patients were haemodynamically unstable. The most common pattern of pelvic fractures was lateral compression in 320 (63.9%). Seventy-nine patients (15.7%) died. Haemorrhagic shock (251; 50%) and sepsis (86; 34.2%) were the predominant causes of death. Multivariate analysis predicted a higher class of haemorrhagic shock and a high injury severity score was associated with poor outcomes of pelvic fractures. Conclusions Management of pelvic trauma is complex due to haemodynamic instability and multiple organ involvement. Our goal-directed, resource-directed approach provided an overall favourable outcome in patients with pelvic fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":519891,"journal":{"name":"The National medical journal of India","volume":"38 3","pages":"133-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A protocolised approach provides a favourable outcome in patients with severe pelvic trauma.\",\"authors\":\"Majid Anwer, Dinesh Bagaria, Narendra Choudhary, Abhinav Kumar, Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Sushma Sagar, Amit Gupta, Biplab Mishra, Subodh Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/NMJI_464_2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Pelvic fractures are often a result of injuries caused by a major force and lead to considerable morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in acute management protocols involving angioembolization as a prime intervention, mortality in complex pelvic fractures remains high. We analysed our experience with the outcomes of a pelvic trauma management protocol using surgical haemostatic techniques over 5 years. Methods We did a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with pelvic factures from January 2014 to December 2018. Demographic profile, clinical details, imaging findings, operative details and outcomes were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors predicting poor outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures. Results A total of 501 patients with pelvic fractures were included, predominantly male (376; 75%), with a mean (SD) age of 34 (13.1) years. Road traffic accidents were the most common cause of injury (362; 72.3%). On presentation, 76 (15.2%) patients were haemodynamically unstable. The most common pattern of pelvic fractures was lateral compression in 320 (63.9%). Seventy-nine patients (15.7%) died. Haemorrhagic shock (251; 50%) and sepsis (86; 34.2%) were the predominant causes of death. Multivariate analysis predicted a higher class of haemorrhagic shock and a high injury severity score was associated with poor outcomes of pelvic fractures. Conclusions Management of pelvic trauma is complex due to haemodynamic instability and multiple organ involvement. Our goal-directed, resource-directed approach provided an overall favourable outcome in patients with pelvic fractures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519891,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The National medical journal of India\",\"volume\":\"38 3\",\"pages\":\"133-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The National medical journal of India\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_464_2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The National medical journal of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_464_2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

骨盆骨折通常是由外力造成的损伤,并导致相当高的发病率和死亡率。尽管以血管栓塞作为主要干预手段的急性治疗方案取得了进展,但复杂骨盆骨折的死亡率仍然很高。我们分析了5年来盆腔创伤手术止血技术治疗的经验。方法回顾性分析2014年1月至2018年12月收治的所有骨盆骨折患者。分析患者的人口学特征、临床细节、影像学表现、手术细节和结果。采用Logistic回归分析确定预测骨盆骨折患者预后不良的因素。结果共纳入501例骨盆骨折患者,以男性为主(376例,75%),平均(SD)年龄34(13.1)岁。道路交通事故是最常见的伤害原因(362人;72.3%)。入院时,76例(15.2%)患者血流动力学不稳定。320例(63.9%)中最常见的骨盆骨折类型为外侧压迫。死亡79例(15.7%)。出血性休克(251例,50%)和败血症(86例,34.2%)是主要的死亡原因。多变量分析预测出血性休克等级越高,损伤严重程度评分越高,盆腔骨折预后越差。结论盆腔创伤的血流动力学不稳定和多脏器受累,治疗较为复杂。我们的目标导向、资源导向的方法为骨盆骨折患者提供了总体有利的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A protocolised approach provides a favourable outcome in patients with severe pelvic trauma.

Background Pelvic fractures are often a result of injuries caused by a major force and lead to considerable morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in acute management protocols involving angioembolization as a prime intervention, mortality in complex pelvic fractures remains high. We analysed our experience with the outcomes of a pelvic trauma management protocol using surgical haemostatic techniques over 5 years. Methods We did a retrospective analysis of all patients admitted with pelvic factures from January 2014 to December 2018. Demographic profile, clinical details, imaging findings, operative details and outcomes were analyzed. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors predicting poor outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures. Results A total of 501 patients with pelvic fractures were included, predominantly male (376; 75%), with a mean (SD) age of 34 (13.1) years. Road traffic accidents were the most common cause of injury (362; 72.3%). On presentation, 76 (15.2%) patients were haemodynamically unstable. The most common pattern of pelvic fractures was lateral compression in 320 (63.9%). Seventy-nine patients (15.7%) died. Haemorrhagic shock (251; 50%) and sepsis (86; 34.2%) were the predominant causes of death. Multivariate analysis predicted a higher class of haemorrhagic shock and a high injury severity score was associated with poor outcomes of pelvic fractures. Conclusions Management of pelvic trauma is complex due to haemodynamic instability and multiple organ involvement. Our goal-directed, resource-directed approach provided an overall favourable outcome in patients with pelvic fractures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信