Gen Surg SAQs · trauma
Unstable open-book pelvis with shock and a perineal wound — binder, pack-versus-plug with clocks, and the open-fracture second killing
Fellowship SAQ on unstable open-book pelvic fracture with shock and perineal wound: binder-first resuscitation, pack-versus-plug equipoise with timing, AAST position, open-fracture sepsis doctrine and LUTI screen.
On this page
Study tools
Target exams
FRACSFRCS(Gen Surg)ABSFRCSC
Prompt
A 34-year-old motorcyclist with an anteroposterior crush injury arrives with systolic 78, heart rate 124, a pelvic film showing open-book diastasis, and a perineal degloving wound communicating with the fracture. FAST is negative. (A) State your first-five-minute resuscitation with the binder evidence, the venous-versus-arterial bleeding logic, and the WSES frame you will declare. (4 marks) (B) He remains unstable after blood — make the packing-versus-embolisation decision with the meta-analytic numbers, the timing curve, and the AAST confounded-position statement. (3 marks) (C) The wound is open — state the open-fracture mortality counsel, the WSES-class prognosis, the sepsis multiplier, and the urological screen. (3 marks)
Write your answer
Saved on this device. No marking — you are the marker.
Model answer
- First five minutes: binder now (ATLS standard, yet only 47% of unstable fractures received one), blood with the binder, FAST plus pelvic film in parallel — declare the WSES frame that management is multidisciplinary and based on physiology plus anatomy.[14][1]
- Bleeding logic: packing directly addresses the bony and venous bleeding that forms the majority of exsanguinating loss, so the unstable-despite-red-cells patient earns extraperitoneal packs; the blush earns embolisation, which remains the arterial mainstay.[12]
- Pack-versus-plug with numbers: 2,040-patient meta — packing saves 1.0 unit of 24-hour blood with mortality RR 0.91 and DVT RR 0.89, both non-significant; 579-patient review — crude 23% versus 32% but dual-arm no difference, with 27% of packed patients needing subsequent embolisation.[6][7]
- Timing and AAST position: 620-patient curve — 0% dead at 0 to 30 minutes rising to 17.0% adjusted at 150 to 180 minutes, so embolise at the earliest opportunity; AAST 948-patient data associate packing with OR 64.0 at 3 hours but reserve packing for deeper shock, positioning embolisation first-line only where rapid endovascular access exists.[4][2]
- Open-fracture counsel: 41-patient series — 24% dead (3 early, 7 late), 17.2 units transfused, 60-day stays; reviews reach 50% mortality, five times closed; early death is exsanguination, late death is wound sepsis with multi-organ failure.[26][24]
- WSES prognosis and sepsis: 830 open fractures — mild 3.5%, moderate 11.2%, severe 23.8%; sepsis multiplies every class (minor 40.0% versus 3.1%, moderate 50.0% versus 9.1%, severe 66.7% versus 22.2%).[33]
- Urology screen: 7.7% LUTI incidence confined to unstable patterns, so retrograde urethrogram for blood at the meatus and cystography for bladder suspicion before any catheter; pooled open data add 19.7% GU injury with one in three females sustaining vaginal laceration.[21][36]
References12ShowHide
- [1]Coccolini F, Stahel PF, Montori G, et al. Pelvic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines. World J Emerg Surg, 2017.PMID 28115984
- [2]Harfouche MN, Sult L, Sciarretta JD, et al. To pack or plug: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter evaluation of hemorrhage control interventions in pelvic fracture management. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2026.PMID 41533046
- [4]Aoki M, Abe T, Matsumoto S, et al. Delayed embolization associated with increased mortality in pelvic fracture with hemodynamic stability at hospital arrival. World J Emerg Surg, 2021.PMID 33941216
- [6]Martinez B, Breeding T, Katz J, et al. Outcomes of Preperitoneal Packing and Angioembolization for Hemorrhage Control in Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am Surg, 2024.PMID 37970830
- [7]McDonogh JM, Lewis DP, Tarrant SM, et al. Preperitoneal packing versus angioembolization for the initial management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg, 2022.PMID 34991126
- [12]Burlew CC Preperitoneal pelvic packing for exsanguinating pelvic fractures. Int Orthop, 2017.PMID 28447123
- [14]Vaidya R, Roth M, Zarling B, et al. Application of Circumferential Compression Device (Binder) in Pelvic Injuries: Room for Improvement. West J Emerg Med, 2016.PMID 27833687
- [21]Zhao X, Lu S, Wang B, et al. Fracture Types Influence the Likelihood of Lower Urinary Tract Injuries in Patients with Pelvic Fractures. J Clin Med, 2023.PMID 37109301
- [24]Roszman AD, John DQ, Patch DA, et al. Management of open pelvic ring injuries. Injury, 2023.PMID 36792402
- [26]Dong JL, Zhou DS Management and outcome of open pelvic fractures: a retrospective study of 41 cases. Injury, 2011.PMID 21349516
- [33]Li PH, Hsu TA, Kuo YC, et al. The application of the WSES classification system for open pelvic fractures-validation and supplement from a nationwide data bank. World J Emerg Surg, 2022.PMID 35624457
- [36]Tischler EH, Wolfert AJ, Lyon T, et al. A review of open pelvic fractures with concurrent genitourinary injuries. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol, 2023.PMID 36209481