Page 45 - JSOM Summer 2023

measured, previous studies have indicated that device applica- 2. Almogy G, Kedar A, Bala M. When a vehicle becomes a weapon:
tion according to manufacturer specifications results in partial intentional vehicular assaults in Israel. Scand J Trauma Resusc
to complete reduction of stable and unstable pelvic fractures Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):149.
without overreduction occurring. 7 3. Amorosa LF, Kloen P, Helfet DL. High-energy pediatric pelvic
and acetabular fractures. Orthop Clin North Am. 2014;45(4):
483–500.
Conclusion 4. Swaid F, Peleg K, Alfici R, Olsha O, Givon A, Kessel B. A compar-
ison study of pelvic fractures and associated abdominal injuries
In conclusion, pelvis circumference in this study showed strong between pediatric and adult blunt trauma patients. J Ped Surg.
univariate associations with age, height, and weight. Weight 2017;52(3):386–389.
was the only factor to show significant multivariate associ- 5. Fu C-Y, Wu Y-T, Liao C-H, et al. Pelvic circumferential compres-
ation with pelvis circumference, thus confirming that weight sion devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need trans-
fers. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31(10):1432–1436.
is the best predictor of potential fit of circumferential devices 6. Hsu S-D, Chen C-J, Chou Y-C, Wang S-H, Chan D-C. Effect of
such as the PCCDs used in the study, as it is for many pediatric early pelvic binder use in the emergency management of suspected
interventions. However, weight and age are not always readily pelvic trauma: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Environ Res
available in emergent settings, where neither scales nor parents Public Health. 2017;14(10):1217.
are likely to be available at the point of injury—hence, the de- 7. Knops SP, Schep NWL, Spoor CW, et al. Comparison of three dif-
velopment and adoption of various length-based systems, such ferent pelvic circumferential compression devices: a biomechani-
cal cadaver study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(3):230–240.
as the Broselow Pediatric Emergency Tape, which proved to be 8. Knops SP, van Riel MPJM, Goossens RHM, van Lieshout EMM,
a reliable, simple, and effective predictor of fit for the Pediatric Patka P, Schipper IB. Measurements of the exerted pressure by
PelvicBinder and the SAM Pelvic Sling in our study population pelvic circumferential compression devices. Open Orthop J.
of 1-year-olds to 13-year-olds when used in a binary, “on or 2010;4:101–106.
off” fashion. 9. Bryan WJ, Tullos HS. Pediatric pelvic fractures: review of 52 pa-
tients. J Trauma. 1979;19(11):799–805.
10. Garvin KL, McCarthy RE, Barnes CL, Dodge BM. Pediatric pel-
Financial Disclosure vic ring fractures. J Pediatr Orthop. 1990;10(5):577–582.
The authors have indicated they have no financial relation- 11. Gänsslen A, Heidari N, Weinberg AM. Fractures of the pelvis in
ships relevant to this article to disclose. children: a review of the literature. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol.
2013;23(8):847–861.
Funding 12. Abdel-Rahman SM, Ahlers N, Holmes A, et al. Validation of an
Materials to support this research were provided compliments improved pediatric weight estimation strategy. J Pediatr Pharma-
col Ther. 2013;18(2):112–121.
of SAM Medical and PelvicBinder, Inc. 13. Garcia CM, Meltzer JA, Chan KN, Cunningham SJ. A validation
study of the PAWPER (Pediatric Advanced Weight Prediction in
References the Emergency Room) Tape—a new weight estimation tool. J Pe-
1. Massalou D, Ichai C, Mariage D, Baqué P. Terrorist attack in diatr. 2015;167(1):173–177.
Nice—the experience of general surgeons. J Visc Surg. 2019;156
(1):17–22. PMID: 37083895; DOI: 10.55460/FAJK-XG81

Selection of Pediatric Pelvic Circumferential Compression Devices | 43