Skip to main content

Table 3 Regional analysis of pelvic packing practices

From: Variability in pelvic packing practices for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures at US level 1 trauma centers

 

Midwest

Northeast

South

West

n

p

Is PP used?

 Yes

80% (8/10)

57% (4/7)

92% (12/13)

100% (6)

36

0.18

 No

20% (2/10)

43% (3/7)

8% (1/13)

0% (0)

Type of PP used

 Use PPP only

75% (6/8)

50% (2/4)

33% (4/12)

667% (4/6)

30

0.16

 Use RPP only

13% (1/8)

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

 Use both

13% (1/8)

50% (2/4)

67% (8/12)

33% (2/6)

Use PP only as a last resort

 Yes

38% (3/8)

75% (3/4)

42% (5/12)

50% (3/6)

30

0.75

 No

63% (5/8)

25% (1/4)

58% (7/12)

50% (3/6)

Apply PP to ALL hemodynamically Unstable Patients

 Yes

0% (0)

100% (1)

0% (0)

33% (1/3)

16

0.05

 No

100% (5)

0% (0)

100% (7)

67% (2/3)

PP is an option for hemodynamically Stable Patients

 Yes

0% (0)

0% (0)

15% (1/7)

0% (0)

16

0.10

 Sometimes

40% (2/5)

100% (1)

71% (5/7)

0% (0)

 No

60% (3/5)

0% (0)

14% (1/7)

100% (3)

PP is safe

 Yes

80% (8/10)

29% (2/7)

92% (12/13)

67% (4/6)

36

0.04

 Sometimes

20% (2/10)

57% (4/7)

8% (1/13)

33% (2/6)

 No

0% (0)

14% (1/7)

0% (0)

0% (0)

PP is effective

 Yes

40% (4/10)

14% (1/7)

38% (5/13)

33% (2/6)

36

0.68

 Sometimes

60% (6/10)

71% (5/7)

62% (8/13)

67% (4/6)

 No

0% (0)

14% (1/7)

0% (0)

0% (0)

PP increases the risk for infection

 Yes

50% (5/10)

44% (3/7)

23% (3/13)

83% (5/6)

36

0.11

 No

50% (5/10)

57% (4/7)

77% (10/13)

17% (1/6)

PP benefits outweigh the risks

 Yes

80% (4/5)

100% (3)

100% (3)

100% (5)

16

0.99

 No

20% (1/5)

0% (0)

0% (0)

0% (0)

  1. Regions were defined using the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition. PP Pelvic Packing, RPP Retroperitoneal Pelvic Packing, PPP Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing