Comparison of Conventional versus Modified Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing in Patients with Bleeding Pelvic Fractures: A Single-Center Retrospective Pilot Study

Abstract

Background: Bleeding pelvic fractures have high mortality rates, primarily due to severe hemorrhage. Treatment options include mechanical stabilization based on preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, and angioembolization (AE). The bilateral preperitoneal approach, which uses three pads on each side, is the conventional PPP method. We aimed to compare the bilateral preperitoneal approach with a modified approach, involving selectively packing only heavily bleeding areas, in terms of clinical outcomes and mortality risks. Methods: We included patients who underwent PPP and compared the outcomes between conventional (three sponges placed on each side) and modified PPP (selective packing of critical areas). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; the secondary outcomes included 24 h mortality, pelvic complications, and transfusion requirements. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for 30-day and 24 h mortality. Results: Among the 47 included patients, 19 and 28 underwent conventional and modified PPP, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in the 24 h (26.3% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.247) and 30-day mortality rates (47.4% vs. 60.7%, p = 0.366). Using univariate and multivariate analyses, initial lactate levels and the decision to perform AE were found to be significant risk factors for mortality. However, the selected PPP method was not a risk factor for 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27–18.26; p = 0.457) or 24 hr mortality (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.24–13.19; p = 0.557). Conclusions: The modified PPP method may be considered in patients with bleeding pelvic fractures for effective bleeding control while minimizing potential complications associated with the conventional PPP.