• D J Bryson, R Davidson, and R Mackenzie.
• Emergency Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Infirmary Square, Leicester, LE1 5WW, UK. davidjbryson@hotmail.com.
• Eur J Trauma Emerg S. 2012 Aug 1;38(4):439-42.

PurposeTraumatic disruption of the pelvis can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. ATLS(®) guidance advocates temporary stabilisation or 'closure' of the disrupted pelvis with a compression device or sheet. We undertook a best evidence equipment review to assess the ease and efficacy of the application of two leading commercially available devices, the T-POD(®) and the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II.MethodsFifty health care professionals and medical students participated in pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) education and assessment. Participants received a 10-min lecture on the epidemiology and aetiology of pelvic fractures and the principles of circumferential compression, followed by a practical demonstration. Three volunteers acted as trauma victims. Assessment included the time taken to secure the devices and whether this was achieved correctly. All participants completed a post-assessment survey.ResultsBoth devices were applied correctly 100% of the time. The average time taken to secure the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was 18 s and for the T-POD(®), it was 31 s (p ≤ 0.0001). Forty-four participants (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was easy to use compared to 84% (n = 42) for the T-POD(®). Thirty-nine participants (78%) reported that they preferred and, given the choice in the future, would select the T-POD(®) over the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II (n = 11, 22%).ConclusionsThe results of this study indicate that both PCCDs are easy and acceptable to use and, once learned, can be applied easily and rapidly. Participants applied both devices correctly 100% of the time, with successful application taking, on average, less than 60 s.

4 keywords...

hide…