Title |
Pelvic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines
|
---|---|
Published in |
World Journal of Emergency Surgery, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13017-017-0117-6 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Federico Coccolini, Philip F. Stahel, Giulia Montori, Walter Biffl, Tal M Horer, Fausto Catena, Yoram Kluger, Ernest E. Moore, Andrew B. Peitzman, Rao Ivatury, Raul Coimbra, Gustavo Pereira Fraga, Bruno Pereira, Sandro Rizoli, Andrew Kirkpatrick, Ari Leppaniemi, Roberto Manfredi, Stefano Magnone, Osvaldo Chiara, Leonardo Solaini, Marco Ceresoli, Niccolò Allievi, Catherine Arvieux, George Velmahos, Zsolt Balogh, Noel Naidoo, Dieter Weber, Fikri Abu-Zidan, Massimo Sartelli, Luca Ansaloni |
Abstract |
Complex pelvic injuries are among the most dangerous and deadly trauma related lesions. Different classification systems exist, some are based on the mechanism of injury, some on anatomic patterns and some are focusing on the resulting instability requiring operative fixation. The optimal treatment strategy, however, should keep into consideration the hemodynamic status, the anatomic impairment of pelvic ring function and the associated injuries. The management of pelvic trauma patients aims definitively to restore the homeostasis and the normal physiopathology associated to the mechanical stability of the pelvic ring. Thus the management of pelvic trauma must be multidisciplinary and should be ultimately based on the physiology of the patient and the anatomy of the injury. This paper presents the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) classification of pelvic trauma and the management Guidelines. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Spain | 12 | 15% |
Argentina | 11 | 14% |
Mexico | 8 | 10% |
Colombia | 4 | 5% |
United States | 3 | 4% |
Brazil | 2 | 3% |
Chile | 2 | 3% |
Belgium | 2 | 3% |
Costa Rica | 1 | 1% |
Other | 8 | 10% |
Unknown | 27 | 34% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 69 | 86% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 10% |
Scientists | 2 | 3% |
Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 716 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 116 | 16% |
Other | 74 | 10% |
Student > Postgraduate | 66 | 9% |
Researcher | 60 | 8% |
Student > Master | 50 | 7% |
Other | 120 | 17% |
Unknown | 230 | 32% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 338 | 47% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 50 | 7% |
Unspecified | 13 | 2% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 11 | 2% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 1% |
Other | 35 | 5% |
Unknown | 261 | 36% |