Long-Term Functional and Urological Outcome After Pelvic Fractures

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Long-Term (Minimum 7-years) Function, Social and Urological Outcome After Operatively Treated Pelvic Fractures?

  • IRAS ID

    188454

  • Contact name

    Tim Chesser

  • Contact email

    tim.chesser@nbt.nhs.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    North Bristol NHS Trust

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 1 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    Pelvic injuries are usually the result of road traffic collisions and falls. Patients often suffer disability as a result of their injuries. We do not know how long the effect of pelvic injuries last or how severe they are.

    The proposed study aims to follow-up a group of 178 patients treated operatively for pelvic ring injuries at North Bristol’s Trauma Centre. The study follows on from a previous research study undertaken in the department in 2007.

    We aim to describe the functional outcome of the group at 7-15 years post surgery (average 10-years) using a number of questionnaires relevant to their injuries. These questionnaires focus on mobility, pain, sexual and urinary problems

    The data will be analysed in terms of overall function, sexual function and urological disturbance. We will then compare our findings with the results of the same group which was collected at an average of 5 years post surgery in the teams previous research work.

    The Bristol pelvic surgeons have treated large numbers of patients and would provide a representative sample to base any observations on. Sexual and urological outcomes are important features of pelvic injury. The results of the 5 year study by the bristol team reported new urological dysfuntion in 41% of patients and sexual dysfunction in 43% of patients at 5 years.

    This would be the largest and longest study of its type in the literature. This will inform future long-term care needs of this complex patient group.

  • REC name

    North East - Newcastle & North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    16/NE/0102

  • Date of REC Opinion

    29 Mar 2016

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion