↓ Skip to main content

Acute management and outcome of multiple trauma patients with pelvic disruptions

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Acute management and outcome of multiple trauma patients with pelvic disruptions
Published in
Critical Care, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11487
Pubmed ID
Authors

Markus Burkhardt, Ulrike Nienaber, Antonius Pizanis, Marc Maegele, Ulf Culemann, Bertil Bouillon, Sascha Flohé, Tim Pohlemann, Thomas Paffrath, the TraumaRegister DGU and the German Pelvic Injury Register of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Data on prehospital and trauma-room fluid management of multiple trauma patients with pelvic disruptions are rarely reported. Present trauma algorithms recommend early hemorrhage control and massive fluid resuscitation. By matching the German Pelvic Injury Register (PIR) with the TraumaRegister DGU (TR) for the first time, we attempt to assess the initial fluid management for different Tile/OTA types of pelvic-ring fractures. Special attention was given to the patient's posttraumatic course, particularly intensive care unit (ICU) data and patient outcome. METHODS: A specific match code was applied to identify certain patients with pelvic disruptions from both PIR and TR anonymous trauma databases, admitted between 2004 and 2009. From the resulting intersection set, a retrospective analysis was done of prehospital and trauma-room data, length of ICU stay, days of ventilation, incidence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), sepsis, and mortality. RESULTS: In total, 402 patients were identified. Mean ISS was 25.9 points, and the mean of patients with ISS ≥16 was 85.6%. The fracture distribution was as follows: 19.7% type A, 29.4% type B, 36.6% type C, and 14.3% isolated acetabular and/or sacrum fractures. The type B/C, compared with type A fractures, were related to constantly worse vital signs that necessitated a higher volume of fluid and blood administration in the prehospital and/or the trauma-room setting. This group of B/C fractures were also related to a significantly higher presence of concomitant injuries and related to increased ISS. This was related to increased ventilation and ICU stay, increased rate of MODS, sepsis, and increased rate of mortality, at least for the type C fractures. Approximately 80% of the dead had sustained type B/C fractures. CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirms the actuality of traditional trauma algorithms with initial massive fluid resuscitation in the recent therapy of multiple trauma patients with pelvic disruptions. Low-volume resuscitation seems not yet to be accepted in practice in managing this special patient entity. Mechanically unstable pelvic-ring fractures type B/C (according to the Tile/OTA classification) form a distinct entity that must be considered notably in future trauma algorithms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 93 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 24 24%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 23 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2012.
All research outputs
#8,185,440
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,291
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,668
of 186,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#45
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 186,147 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.