- Comparison of Survival in Pelvic Bone Fractures with Arterial Embolization
-
Woo Youn Kim, Eun Seok Hong, Jung Seok Hong, Ryeok Ahn, Jae Cheol Hwang, Sun Hyu Kim
-
J Korean Soc Traumatol. 2008;21(1):46-52.
-
-
-
 Abstract
 PDF
- PURPOSE
This study was to evaluate the effect of arterial embolization on survival in patients with pelvic bone fractures and arterial bleeding.
METHODS
From January 2001 to December 2007, in all, 18 patients with pelvic bone fractures that had been treated with interventional arterial embolization were included in this retrospective study. The Injury Severity Score (ISS), the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), the initial hemodynamic status, the blood gas analysis, blood transfusion data, and mortality were the main outcome measurements.
RESULTS
Pelvic bone fractures were classified into lateral compression (LC), antero-posterior compression (APC), vertical shear (VS), and combined (CM) type according to the Young-Burgess classification. The Survivor group included 11 patients (61.1%), and the non-survivor group included 7 patients (38.9%). The mean ages for the survivor and the non-survivor groups were 40.0 and 45.6 years (p=0.517). The types of pelvic bone fractures were LC 11 (61.1%), APC 6 (33.3%), and VS 1 (5.6%): LC 7 (63.6%), and APC 4 (36.4%) in the survivor group and LC 4 (57.1%), APC 2 (28.6%), and VS 1 (14.3%) in the non-survivor group. The internal iliac artery was the predominant injured vessel among both the survivors (n = 5, 45.5%) and the non-survivors (n = 4, 57.1%). No differences in initial blood pressures, ISS, and RTS existed between the two groups, but the arterial pH was lower in the non-survivor group (pH 7.09 (+/-0.20) vs 7.30 (+/-0.08), p=0.018). The number of transfused 24-hour units of packed RBC was greater in the non-survivor group (24.1+/-12.5 vs 14.4+/-6.8, p=0.046).
CONCLUSION
No differences in initial blood pressure and trauma scores existed between survivors and nonsurvivors with pelvic bone fractures, who had been treated with arterial embolization, but arterial pH was lower the in non-survivors.
-
Summary
- Are Falls of Less Than 6 Meters Safe?
-
Young Woo Seo, Jung Seok Hong, Woo Yun Kim, Ryeok Ahn, Eun Seok Hong
-
J Korean Soc Traumatol. 2006;19(1):54-58.
-
-
-
Abstract
PDF
- PURPOSE
The committee on trauma of the american college of surgeons, in its manual resources for optimal care of the injured patients involved in falls from less than 20 feet need not be taken to trauma centers. Because triage criteria dictate less urgency for low-level falls, this classification scheme has demerits for early detection and treatment of serious problems in the emergency room.
METHODS
A prospective analysis was conducted of 182 patients treated for fall-related trauma from June 2003 to March 2004. Falls were classified as group A (<3 m), group B (> or =3 m, <6 m), and group C (> or =6 m). Collected data included the patient's age, gender, site and height of fall, surface fallen upon, body area of first impact, body regions of injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Injury Severity Score (ISS).
RESULTS
The 182 patients were classified as group A (105) 57.7%, group B (61) 33.5%, and group C (16) 8.8%. There was a weak positive correlation between the height of fall and the patients'ISS in the three groups (p<0.001). There were significant differences in GCS (p=0.017), RTS (p=0.034), and ISS (p=0.007) between group A and B. In cases that the head was the initial impact area of the body, the GCS (p<0.001) and the RTS (p=0.002) were lower, but the ISS (p<0.001) was higher than it was for other type of injuries. Hard surfaces as an impact surface type, had an influence on the GCS (p<0.001) and the ISS (p=0.025).
CONCLUSION
To simply categorize patients who fall over 6 meters as severely injured patients doesn't have much meaning, and though patients may have fallen less than 6 meters, they should be categorized by using the dynamics (impact surface type, initial body-impact area) of their fall.
-
Summary
|
KST
