Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review

被引:4
|
作者
Bryson, D. J. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Davidson, R. [2 ,4 ]
Mackenzie, R. [2 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Leicester Royal Infirm, Trauma & Orthopaed CT2, Leicester, Leics, England
[2] Leicester Royal Infirm, Emergency Dept, Leicester LE1 5WW, Leics, England
[3] Univ Hosp Leicester, Leicester Royal Infirm, Dept Trauma & Orthopaed, Leicester, Leics, England
[4] Lincoln Cty Hosp, Emergency Dept, Lincoln, Lincs, England
[5] Cambridge Univ Hosp NHS Fdn Trust, Addenbrookes Hosp, Emergency Dept, Cambridge, England
关键词
Pelvic trauma; Fracture; ATLS; Circumferential compression; Pelvic binders; FRACTURES; STABILIZATION;
D O I
10.1007/s00068-012-0180-3
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Traumatic disruption of the pelvis can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. ATLS(A (R)) guidance advocates temporary stabilisation or 'closure' of the disrupted pelvis with a compression device or sheet. We undertook a best evidence equipment review to assess the ease and efficacy of the application of two leading commercially available devices, the T-PODA (R) and the SAM Pelvic Sling (TM) II. Fifty health care professionals and medical students participated in pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) education and assessment. Participants received a 10-min lecture on the epidemiology and aetiology of pelvic fractures and the principles of circumferential compression, followed by a practical demonstration. Three volunteers acted as trauma victims. Assessment included the time taken to secure the devices and whether this was achieved correctly. All participants completed a post-assessment survey. Both devices were applied correctly 100% of the time. The average time taken to secure the SAM Pelvic Sling (TM) II was 18 s and for the T-PODA (R), it was 31 s (p a parts per thousand currency sign 0.0001). Forty-four participants (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that the SAM Pelvic Sling (TM) II was easy to use compared to 84% (n = 42) for the T-PODA (R). Thirty-nine participants (78%) reported that they preferred and, given the choice in the future, would select the T-PODA (R) over the SAM Pelvic Sling (TM) II (n = 11, 22%). The results of this study indicate that both PCCDs are easy and acceptable to use and, once learned, can be applied easily and rapidly. Participants applied both devices correctly 100% of the time, with successful application taking, on average, less than 60 s.
引用
收藏
页码:439 / 442
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review
    D. J. Bryson
    R. Davidson
    R. Mackenzie
    European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 2012, 38 : 439 - 442
  • [2] Pelvic circumferential compression devices for prehospital management of suspected pelvic fractures: a rapid review and evidence summary for quality indicator evaluation
    Robin Pap
    Rachel McKeown
    Craig Lockwood
    Matthew Stephenson
    Paul Simpson
    Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 28
  • [3] Pelvic circumferential compression devices for prehospital management of suspected pelvic fractures: a rapid review and evidence summary for quality indicator evaluation
    Pap, Robin
    McKeown, Rachel
    Lockwood, Craig
    Stephenson, Matthew
    Simpson, Paul
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF TRAUMA RESUSCITATION & EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2020, 28 (01):
  • [4] Effectiveness and complications of pelvic circumferential compression devices in patients with unstable pelvic fractures: A systematic review of literature
    Spanjersberg, Willem R.
    Knops, Simon P.
    Schep, Niels W. L.
    van Lieshout, Esther M. M.
    Patka, Peter
    Schipper, Inger B.
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2009, 40 (10): : 1031 - 1035
  • [5] PELVIC CIRCUMFERENTIAL COMPRESSION DEVICES FOR HAEMORRHAGE CONTROL: PANACEA OR MYTH?
    Stewart, Michael
    Clarke, David
    EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2013, 30 (05) : 425 - 426
  • [6] Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers
    Fu, Chih-Yuan
    Wu, Yu-Tung
    Liao, Chien-Hung
    Kang, Shih-Ching
    Wang, Shang-Yu
    Hsu, Yu-Pao
    Lin, Being-Chuan
    Yuan, Kuo-Ching
    Kuo, I-Ming
    Ouyang, Chun-Hsiang
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2013, 31 (10): : 1432 - 1436
  • [7] Comparison of skin pressure measurements with the use of pelvic circumferential compression devices on pelvic ring injuries
    Prasarn, Mark L.
    Horodyski, MaryBeth
    Schneider, Prism S.
    Pernik, Mark N.
    Gary, Josh L.
    Rechtine, Glenn R.
    INJURY-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE CARE OF THE INJURED, 2016, 47 (03): : 717 - 720
  • [8] Comparison of Three Different Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices: A Biomechanical Cadaver Study
    Knops, S. P.
    Schep, N. W. L.
    Spoor, C. W.
    van Riel, M. P. J. M.
    Spanjersberg, W. R.
    Kleinrensink, G. J.
    van Lieshout, E. M. M.
    Patka, P.
    Schipper, I. B.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2011, 93A (03): : 230 - 240
  • [9] Application of Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices in Pelvic Ring Fractures-Are Guidelines Followed in Daily Practice?
    Kuner, Valerie
    van Veelen, Nicole
    Studer, Stephanie
    Van de Wall, Bryan
    Fornaro, Jurgen
    Stickel, Michael
    Knobe, Matthias
    Babst, Reto
    Beeres, Frank J. P.
    Link, Bjorn-Christian
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2021, 10 (06) : 1 - 14
  • [10] Pelvic circumferential compression devices in pelvic fracture: today's solution could become tomorrow's problem
    Garcia-Fernandez, Noelia
    Maria Duran-Munoz-Cruzado, Virginia
    Pareja-Ciuro, Felipe
    Javier Padillo-Ruiz, Francisco
    EMERGENCIAS, 2022, 34 (06): : 487 - 488