Which pelvic compression device is best?

Two popular pelvic compression devices are the SAM Pelvic Sling II and the T-POD®.

In a direct comparison 50 health care volunteers secured both devices correctly 100% of the time.

The SAM Pelvic Sling II was quicker to apply, but participants preferred the T-POD®.

The authors conclude that very little separates the devices.

Pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCDs): a best evidence equipment review
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg (2012) 38:439–442


Purpose Traumatic disruption of the pelvis can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. ATLS® guidance advocates temporary stabilisation or ‘closure’ of the disrupted pelvis with a compression device or sheet. We undertook a best evidence equipment review to assess the ease and efficacy of the application of two leading commercially available devices, the T-POD® and the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II.

Methods Fifty health care professionals and medical students participated in pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) education and assessment. Participants received a 10-min lecture on the epidemiology and aetiology of pelvic fractures and the principles of circumferential compression, followed by a practical demonstration. Three volunteers acted as trauma victims. Assessment included the time taken to secure the devices and whether this was achieved correctly. All participants completed a post-assessment survey.

Results Both devices were applied correctly 100% of the time. The average time taken to secure the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was 18 s and for the T-POD®, it was 31 s (p ≤ 0.0001). Forty-four participants (88%) agreed or strongly agreed that the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II was easy to use compared to 84% (n = 42) for the T-POD®. Thirty-nine participants (78%) reported that they preferred and, given the choice in the future, would select the T-POD® over the SAM Pelvic Sling™ II (n = 11, 22%).

Conclusions The results of this study indicate that both PCCDs are easy and acceptable to use and, once learned, can be applied easily and rapidly. Participants applied both devices correctly 100% of the time, with successful application taking, on average, less than 60 s.