Are Pelvic Binders an Effective Prehospital Intervention?

Abstract

Objective

Widespread adoption of prehospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs) by emergency medical services (EMS) systems has been slow and variable across the United States. We sought to determine the frequency of prehospital PCCD use by EMS providers. Secondarily, we hypothesized that prehospital PCCD use would improve early hemorrhagic shock outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 162 unstable pelvic ring injuries transported directly to our center by EMS from 2011 to 2020. Included patients received a PCCD during their resuscitation (prehospital or emergency department). Prehospital treatment details were obtained from the EMS medical record. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a PCCD by EMS before hospital arrival. Secondarily, we explored factors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD, and its association with changes in vital signs, blood transfusion, and mortality.

Results

EMS providers documented suspicion of a pelvic ring fracture in 85 (52.8%) patients and 52 patients in the cohort (32.2%) received a prehospital PCCD. Wide variation in prehospital PCCD use was observed based on patient characteristics, geographic location, and EMS provider level. Helicopter flight paramedics applied a prehospital PCCD in 46% of the patients they transported (38/83); in contrast, the EMS organizations geographically closest to our hospital applied a PCCD in ≤5% of cases (2/47). Other predictors associated with receiving a prehospital PCCD included lower body mass index (p = 0.005), longer prehospital duration (p = 0.001) and lower Injury Severity Score (p < 0.05). We were unable to identify any improvements in clinical outcomes associated with prehospital PCCD, including early vital signs, number of blood transfusions within 24 hours, or mortality during admission (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate wide practice variation in the application of prehospital PCCDs. Although disparate PCCD application across the state is likely explained by differences across EMS organizations and provider levels, our study was unable to identify any clinical benefits to the prehospital use of PCCDs. It is possible that the benefits of a prehospital PCCD can only be observed in the most displaced fracture patterns with the greatest early hemodynamic instability.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Data availability statement

Raw data were generated at the R Adams Shock Trauma Center, University of Maryland. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (GS) upon reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

Mr. O’Hara reported receiving stock or stock options from Arbutus Medical, Inc. unrelated to this research. Dr. Pollak reported receiving royalties from Globus and Zimmer Biomet unrelated to this research. Dr. Slobogean reported receiving research funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases to partially support this work (K24AR076445), and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the US Department of Defense unrelated to this research; serving as a paid consultant with Nuvasive Orthopedics, Smith & Nephew and Zimmer Biomet unrelated to this research.