Search

Double-physician couples being parents have been shown to face greater difficulties in combining their private and professional lives when compared to other couples. In the present study, we aimed to analyze how double-physician couples manage to arrange their roles in their private and professional lives and how compatible their individual idea of being a mother or a father is with their career as a physician. Fifteen couples being parents and consisting of either two surgeons or a surgeon and a nonsurgeon were asked to participate in a survey to determine the average maternity or paternity leave, the reduction of hours worked per week after the birth of a child, and the need for professional childcare and additional support in childcare from relatives or babysitters per week. Furthermore, the couples were asked to mark on a six-item Likert scale how compatible their professional life is with their idea of being parents. The average maternity or paternity leave was 13 ± 2 months per child and the mean reduction of hours worked per week was 30 ± 12%. The couples made use of professional childcare for 41 ± 6 h/week on average and needed additional support in childcare from relatives or babysitters for 5 ± 3 h/week. On the Likert scale from “completely incompatible (0)” to “perfectly compatible (5)”, the mean compatibility of professional and private lives was rated 2.5 ± 1.1. Becoming parents significantly influences the professional and private lives of double-physician couples. The relatively low compatibility of double-physician couples’ private and professional lives might lead to relevant work-home conflicts. Such conflicts have been proven to be associated with surgeons not recommending surgery as a career. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve the compatibility of parenthood and a medical career.

Severe bleeding is the major cause of death in unstable pelvic ring fractures. Therefore, a quick and efficient emergency stabilization and bleeding control is inevitable. C-clamp and pelvic binder are efficient tools for temporary bleeding control, especially from the posterior pelvic ring. Yet the C-clamp requires more user knowledge, training and equipment. However, whether this makes up for a more efficient bleeding control, is still under debate. Patients with a type-C pelvic ring fracture were identified from the German Pelvic Registry (GPR) and divided into three groups of 40 patients (1. no emergency stabilization, 2. pelvic binder, 3. C-clamp). The matching occurred according to the parameters age, gender, initial RR and initial HB. Complication—and mortality rates were compared especially regarding bleeding control. Regarding ISS and fracture dislocation there was no difference. The use of the C-clamp resulted in more complications, a higher mortality rate due to severe bleeding and more blood transfusions were admitted. Moreover the pelvic binder was established noticeably faster. However, the C-clamp was more often rated as effective. There is no evidence of advantage comparing the C-clamp to the pelvic binder, regarding bleeding control in type-C pelvic ring fractures. In fact, using the pelvic binder even showed better results, as the time until established bleeding control was significantly shorter. Therefore, the pelvic binder should be the first choice. The C-clamp should remain a measure for selected cases only, if an adequate bleeding control cannot be achieved by the pelvic binder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pelvic fractures are rare but serious injuries. The influence of a concomitant abdominal trauma on the time point of surgery and the quality of care regarding quality of reduction or the clinical course in pelvic injuries has not been investigated yet. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the prospective consecutive cohort from the multicenter German Pelvic Registry of the German Trauma Society in the years 2003–2017. Demographic, clinical, and operative parameters were recorded and compared for two groups (isolated pelvic fracture vs. combined abdominal/pelvic trauma). Results: 16.359 patients with pelvic injuries were treated during this period. 21.6% had a concomitant abdominal trauma. The mean age was 61.4 ± 23.5 years. Comparing the two groups, patients with a combination of pelvic and abdominal trauma were significantly younger (47.3 ± 22.0 vs. 70.5 ± 20.4 years; p < 0.001). Both, complication (21.9% vs. 9.9%; p < 0.001) and mortality (8.0% vs. 1.9%; p < 0.001) rates, were significantly higher. In the subgroup of acetabular fractures, the operation time was significantly longer in the group with the combined injury (198 ± 104 vs. 176 ± 81 min, p = 0.001). The grade of successful anatomic reduction of the acetabular fracture did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: Patients with a pelvic injury have a concomitant abdominal trauma in about 20% of the cases. The clinical course is significantly prolonged in patients with a combined injury, with increased rates of morbidity and mortality. However, the quality of the reduction in the subgroup of acetabular fractures is not influenced by a concomitant abdominal injury. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03952026, Registered 16 May 2019, retrospectively registered [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare anterior plate fixation (SP fixation) both alone and in combination with an additional posterior sacroiliac screw (SP+SIS fixation) as a treatment for pelvic ring injuries with widening of the pubic symphysis and disruption to the anterior sacroiliac ligaments., Methods: To find studies with pelvic ring injuries (APC II; B2.3d) and SP or SP+SIS fixation, a systematic literature review was conducted by searching four databases. A protocol was published a priori at Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3YHAV). Exclusion criteria included perineal injuries, chronic instability of the symphysis, complete sacroiliac separation, and pediatric patients (age <18 years). Primary outcomes of interest were defined as implant failure, health-related quality of life, and revision rate., Results: Altogether, 1861 studies were screened, and 40 studies qualified for full-text analysis. In total, 14 studies (two surveys, six biomechanical studies, and six retrospective clinical studies) were included. The surveys revealed that surgeons who had more recently begun practicing were more likely to use posterior fixation (SP+ISS). The biomechanical studies were heterogenous and did not yield a uniform pattern. In clinical studies, 117 patients (45%) received SP fixation, and 142 patients (55%) received SP+SIS fixation. Complications occurred in 31 SP patients (30%) and in five SP+SIS patients (3.5%)., Conclusion: A high risk of bias was uncovered, and reporting was found to be incomplete. SP+SIS may have the potential to improve outcomes, but the evidence remains too inconclusive to draw reliable recommendations.