Internal Iliac Artery Embolization versus Silastic Loop Ligation for Control of Traumatic Pelvic Hemorrhage

Abstract

Angioembolization versus open control of traumatic pelvic hemorrhage is debated. We sought to compare outcomes between angioembolization and open internal iliac artery occlusion. A 14-year retrospective review (2004–2017) was performed at our academic Level I trauma center. All pelvic hemorrhage patients who underwent internal iliac artery angioembolization or silastic loop ligation via laparotomy were compared for outcomes. Patient demographics included vital signs, mechanism, and injury severity score (ISS). Outcomes included mortality (%), operating room visits, reoperation for hemorrhage (%), transfusion burden (units), and infection (%). A total of 163 trauma patients matched for age, ISS, mechanism, and cavitary involvement were included for analysis. Compared with silastic loop ligation (n = 51, mean ISS = 32 ± 14), patients who underwent angioembolization (n = 112, mean ISS = 30 ± 8.9) demonstrated decreased mortality (23% vs 57%, P < 0.01), made fewer operating room trips (mean = 2.2 vs 3.6 trips, P < 0.01), made fewer trips for pelvic (2.8 vs 11%, P = 0.05) and nonpelvic-related bleeding (3.6 vs 22%, P < 0.01), used fewer blood products [packed red blood cells, fresh-frozen plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate] (P < 0.01 for all), and indicated a trend toward fewer infections (5.7% vs 14%, P = 0.07). Internal iliac artery angioembolization demonstrates lower mortality, lower reoperation rates, decreased transfusion burden, and a trend toward fewer infections compared with silastic loop ligation.