Until today the mortality of complex pelvic trauma remains unacceptably high. On the one hand this could be attributed to a biological limit of the survivable trauma load, on the other hand side an ongoing inadequate treatment might be conceivable too. For the management of multiple trauma patients with life-threatening pelvic fractures, there is ongoing international debate on the adequate therapeutic strategy, e.g. arterial embolization or pelvic packing, as well as aggressive or restrained volume therapy. Whereas traditional pelvis-specific trauma algorithms still recommend massive fluid resuscitation, there is upcoming evidence that a restrained volume therapy in the preclinical setting may improve trauma outcomes. Less intravenous fluid administration may also reduce haemodilution and concomitant trauma-associated coagulopathy. After linking the data of the TraumaRegister DGU(®) and the German Pelvic Injury Register, for the first time, the initial fluid management for complex pelvic traumas as well as for different Tile/OTA types of pelvic ring fractures could be addressed. Unfortunately, the results could not answer the question of the adequate fluid resuscitation but confirmed the actuality of massive fluid resuscitation in the prehospital and emergency room setting. Low-volume resuscitation seems not yet accepted in practice in managing multiple trauma patients with pelvic fractures at least in Germany. Nevertheless, prevention of exsanguination and of complications like multiple organ dysfunction syndrome still poses a major challenge in the management of complex pelvic ring injuries. Even nowadays, fluid management for trauma, not only for pelvic fractures, remains a controversial area and further research is mandatory.





Polls results
1

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
0% Article relates to my practice (0/0)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
2

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
3

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/0)
0% No (0/0)
0% Undecided (0/0)
4

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/0)
0% Level 2 (0/0)
0% Level 3 (0/0)
0% Level 4 (0/0)
0% Level 5 (0/0)