Skip to main content
. 2023 Sep 1;9(5):1660–1682. doi: 10.3390/tomography9050133

Table 1.

Population data.

Variables All Patients (n = 116)
Age (years) 56.5 (±23.4)
Sex (M/F) 82 (70.7%)/34 (29.3%)
BMI 26.1 (±4)
eGFR (mL/min) 69.3 (±24.1)
INR 1.3 (±0.3)
aPTT (s) 41.1 (±5.9)
Platelet count (No. ×103/μL) 325.1 (±109)
Coagulopathy (no/yes) 80 (69.0%)/36 (31.0%)
 - INR > 1.5 32 (27.6%)
 - aPTT > 45 s 32 (27.6%)
 - PLT < 80,000/mm3 10 (8.6%)
Baseline hemoglobin (g/dL) 7.9 (±0.9)
Antiplatelet therapy 23 (19.8%)
Anticoagulant therapy 35 (30.2%)
Antiplatelet AND anticoagulant therapy 0 (0%)
Antiplatelet OR anticoagulant therapy 58 (50.0%)
Mechanism of pelvic trauma
 - Blunt 102 (87.9%)
 - Penetrating 14 (12.1%)
Hemodynamic stability/instability 72 (62.1%)/44 (37.9%)
Young–Burgess classification of pelvic fracture
 - Stable 36 (31.0%)
 - Unstable 80 (69.0%)
WSES classification pelvic ring injuries
 - Minor (grade I) 24 (20.7%)
 - Moderate (grade II/grade III) 48 (41.4%)–(20.7%/20.7%)
 - Severe (grade IV) 44 (37.9%)
Injury Severity Score 28.8 (±15)
Extra-pelvic injury 78 (67.2%)
CT angiography execution 98 (84.5%)
Bleeding on CT angiography 86 (74.1%)
 - Direct sign 56 (65.1%)
 - Indirect sign 30 (34.9%)
Hematoma volume (mL) 289.1 (±309)