Patient Characteristics and Outcomes for Young-Burgess Pelvic Injuries, 2007-2024

346 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from a trauma center cohort study of pelvic ring injuries classified by the Young and Burgess system. The dataset, created by Camryn C. Therrien and last updated in April 2026, includes recovery, mortality, and reintervention rates with a median follow-up of 2.2 years. Full recovery rates for specific injury types range from 11% to 46%, with 30-day mortality as high as 19% for LC3 injuries.

Use Cases

• Compare functional recovery rates across Young-Burgess injury classifications based on the reported percentages.
• Analyze associations between injury type and 30-day mortality rates based on the provided mortality statistics.
• Model predictors for reintervention due to pain or discomfort based on the described higher rates for LC3, APC3, VS, and CM injuries.
• Benchmark patient-reported health-related quality of life (HR-Qol) against general population normative data as described in the study methods.

Strengths

• Includes 346 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), representing 75% of the eligible cohort.
• Provides specific recovery percentages for eight distinct Young-Burgess injury classifications (e.g., LC1=41%, LC3=11%).
• Reports concrete 30-day mortality rates for severe injury types (e.g., LC3=19%, APC3=16%).
• Covers a 17-year time range (2007-2024) from a single level 1 trauma center.

Limitations

• Row count is unknown, which may limit suitability assessment.
• Column-level documentation is absent; field semantics must be inferred after download.
• The dataset is very small at 9.5 KB, indicating limited scope and likely a summary table rather than raw patient records.

Provenance

Source

figshare, author Camryn C. Therrien.

Collection Method

Cohort study of patients with Young and Burgess classified pelvic ring injuries at a level 1 trauma center.

Time Range

2007 to 2024

Freshness

Last updated 2026-04-09 17:35:42; freshness should be verified.

Geography

Likely the Netherlands, based on the use of Dutch PROM instruments and comparison to Dutch normative data.