Retroperitoneal packing or angioembolization for haemorrhage control of pelvic fractures—Quasi-randomized clinical trial of 56 haemodynamically unstable patients with Injury Severity Score ≥33

Pelvic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines

“…More recent observational studies confirmed the notion that extraperitoneal pelvic packing is a safe and fast procedure associated with a significantly reduced mortality in hemodynamically unstable patients with pelvic fractures, compared to patients managed by conventional measures without pelvic packing [89–91]. …”

“…The need for angioembolization following PPP has been reported to be between 13 and 20% [56, 87, 91]. However, Totterman et al reported that 80% of patients who underwent PPP had positive findings for arterial injury at angiography [94].…”

“…PPP has been proposed as an alternative to angiography [79, 87, 91, 93]. Some papers [87, 91, 93] compared the use of PPP vs. Angioembolization.…”

“…Some papers [87, 91, 93] compared the use of PPP vs. Angioembolization. In a recent a prospective quasi-randomized trial Li et al [91] showed that time-to-procedure and procedure time were significantly shorter in the PACK group than in the ANGIO one.…”

“…Some papers [87, 91, 93] compared the use of PPP vs. Angioembolization. In a recent a prospective quasi-randomized trial Li et al [91] showed that time-to-procedure and procedure time were significantly shorter in the PACK group than in the ANGIO one. The need for packed red cells in the first 24 h after procedure, the need for complementary procedures (angiography or PPP), mortality rates did not differ between the two groups [91].…”