Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review

D. J. Bryson, R. Davidson, R. Mackenzie

Traumatic 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. Fifty 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. Both 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%). The 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.