The Journal of international medical research · 2023
Extraperitoneal pelvic packing versus angiographic embolization for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures: a retrospective single-center analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chu Jisen, Xie Changyuan, Fu Jiaojiao, Yao Weigen
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively analyze the clinical data and treatment procedures of angiographic embolization (AE) and extraperitoneal pelvic packing (EPP) for traumatic pelvic fractures in our center for the purpose of providing recommendations on the selection of treatment protocols.
METHODS: We analyzed 110 patients with traumatic pelvic fractures treated with AE and EPP from January 2015 to May 2023. The patients were divided into the AE group (69 men, 41 women) and the EPP group (20 men, 12 women). The primary outcomes were the mortality rate and incidence of complications.
RESULTS: The mortality rate was slightly lower in the AE than EPP group (7.3% vs. 9.4%). The overall blood transfusion volume was lower and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the AE than EPP group (7.79 ± 12.04 vs. 9.14 ± 14.21 units and 20.48 ± 11.32 vs. 22.14 ± 10.47 days).
CONCLUSIONS: Both AE and EPP have good treatment effects. AE is preferred for patients in stable condition with severe hemorrhage. This study suggests that EPP should be the primary treatment and that AE should serve as a complementary treatment for critical patients.
METHODS: We analyzed 110 patients with traumatic pelvic fractures treated with AE and EPP from January 2015 to May 2023. The patients were divided into the AE group (69 men, 41 women) and the EPP group (20 men, 12 women). The primary outcomes were the mortality rate and incidence of complications.
RESULTS: The mortality rate was slightly lower in the AE than EPP group (7.3% vs. 9.4%). The overall blood transfusion volume was lower and the length of hospital stay was shorter in the AE than EPP group (7.79 ± 12.04 vs. 9.14 ± 14.21 units and 20.48 ± 11.32 vs. 22.14 ± 10.47 days).
CONCLUSIONS: Both AE and EPP have good treatment effects. AE is preferred for patients in stable condition with severe hemorrhage. This study suggests that EPP should be the primary treatment and that AE should serve as a complementary treatment for critical patients.