Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta in Hemodynamically Unstable Patients With Pelvic Ring Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of patients with pelvic ring injuries managed with resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Academic, Level 1 trauma center in North America. PATIENTS: Twenty-five patients with disruption of the pelvic ring and hemodynamic instability. INTERVENTION: Placement of a REBOA device as an adjuvant treatment to trauma resuscitation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Death and ischemic-related complications. RESULTS: The average age of patients was 43 years (range: 17-85). Patients presented with a median lactate of 6.3 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure of 116 mm Hg, heart rate of 121 beats/minute, and injury severity score of 34. The median unit of packed red blood cells received through transfusion in the first 24 hours of hospital admission was 13 (interquartile range: 8-28). Young-Burgess injury patterns included fractures of the following types: 5 lateral compression (LC)-1, 1 LC-2, 8 LC-3, 4 anteroposterior compression-2, and 7 anteroposterior compression-3. Angiography and embolization were performed in 24 (96%) patients. Selective embolization occurred in 18 (72%) patients, with nonselective angiography of the iliac system occurring in 7 (24%) patients. There were 12 (48%) deaths, 7 (28%) patients requiring lower extremity fasciotomy, and 5 (20%) patients requiring lower extremity amputations, and there was 1 (4%) patient requiring thrombectomy. CONCLUSIONS: REBOA use in pelvic ring injuries is rare and most frequently used in critically ill patients with polytrauma. Successful pelvic embolization can occur in concert with REBOA use; however, the severity of injury is associated with a high complication profile. In this series of 25 patients, in-hospital mortality was 48%. For those patients who survived, 54% experienced a major complication (fasciotomy, amputation, and deep infection). Further investigation is required to evaluate the role REBOA may play in managing these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fixed angle device comparison in young femoral neck fractures: Dynamic hip screw vs dynamic helical hip system.

INTRODUCTION: Femoral neck fractures in the young patient present a unique challenge. Most surgeons managing these injuries prefer a fixed angle implant, however these devices are fraught with problems. A dynamic hip screw (DHS) is one such fixed angle device that risks malreduction through rotational torque during screw insertion. To avoid this risk some surgeons utilize a dynamic helical hip system (DHHS), however little is known about the complication profile of this device. We hypothesized that the complication rate between these two devices would be similar. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to a single tertiary referral center with a femoral neck fracture were identified from a prospectively collected trauma database over an 11-year period. Patients were included if they were less than 60 years of age, treated with a DHS or DHHS, and had at least 6 months of follow-up. Demographic data, injury characteristics, and post-operative complications were obtained through chart review. Standard statistical comparisons were made between groups. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Average age of patients was 38 years (range: 18-59) and 56 (73%) were male. The DHS was used in 37 (48%) patients and the DHHS was used in 40 (52%) patients. Demographic data including average age, gender, body mass index, and smoking status did not differ between the groups. There were 29 (39%) total complications of interest (femoral neck shortening >5 mm, non-union requiring osteotomy, conversion to THA, and osteonecrosis. There were 19 (51%) complications in the DHS group and 10 (25%) in the DHHS group (p = 0.01, risk difference 25%, 95% CI 7-43). Comparisons of the individual complications about the DHS and DHHS cohort did not reach statistical significance for non-union (8% vs 3%) or THA (16% vs 13%) (p = 0.33, p = 0.64, respectively) but a difference was detected in the rate of shortening (27% vs 10%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a high risk of complication when managing young femoral neck fractures in line with prior literature. The major complication rate of non-union requiring osteotomy or fixation failure resulting in THA was no different between the two groups, but the rate of shortening was greater the DHS group. This data suggests the DHHS may be a suitable device to manage the young femoral neck fracture and without increased risk of complication.