Search

Limited English proficiency (LEP) is linked to lower health care access and worse clinical outcomes. This study aims to explore the potential role of LEP on clinical outcomes of pediatric burn patients. We conducted a single-institution retrospective study of burn patients presenting at a tertiary pediatric burn referral program between January 2016 and December 2020. Patient demographics, burn mechanism, severity, interventions, and primary patient language were abstracted from the electronic health record. Clinical outcomes (length of stay [LOS], clinic follow-up, and 30-day readmission) of patients with LEP were compared to patients with English as primary language (EPL). Thirty-five (4.2%) patients with LEP were identified of 840 total patients. On univariate analysis, there was no difference in mean total body surface area (6.5% versus 6.1%), report of physical abuse (2.9% versus 8.9%), or need for grafting (14.3% versus 15.0%) comparing patients with LEP to those with EPL. Patients with LEP were more likely to have a scald burn (68.6% versus 48.9%, P = 0.025) and less likely to have a flame/fire burn (20.0% versus 37.6%, P = 0.047). On multivariate analysis, there was no difference between patients with LEP compared to patients with EPL for LOS (2.9 versus 3.5 d), 30-day readmissions (5.6% versus 5.7%), or clinic follow-up (80.6% versus 75.0%). In patients with >10% total body surface area, patients with LEP had a longer emergency department LOS (277 min versus 145 min, P = 0.06) but no difference in outcome measures. Pediatric patients with LEP were not found to have worse burn outcomes compared to EPL patients in our patient sample. However, a true association is difficult to determine given the small sample size of LEP patients and the potential underestimation of language discordancy as recorded in the electronic medical record. Further research is needed to better explore the role of primary language and health communication as a social determinant of health in pediatric burn patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Optimal material and timing of cranioplasty in the pediatric population continue to be debated. Autologous and alloplastic materials have various indications for use and risk factors for complications. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all pediatric patients who underwent cranioplasty with any material from 1991–2021. Results: 149 cranioplasty implants were included. Younger age (6 years old or under), a diagnosis of craniosynostosis as reason for implant, use of autologous bone, and shorter times to cranioplasty were predictive of need for revision surgery. No factors studied had a statistically significant impact on rate of removal of implant at time of revision surgery. Conclusion: Autologous and alloplastic cranioplasty materials both have good outcomes with low rates of revision surgery in the pediatric population. Alloplastic implants may be considered in the setting of infection as reason for craniectomy given the lower rate of revision surgery and need for removal. Patients with craniosynostosis as reason for cranioplasty have a higher risk of requiring revision or additional surgeries, regardless of implant used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]