Search

Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) are the leading cause of unintentional death among children and adolescents; however, public awareness and use of appropriate restraint recommendations are perceived as deficient. We aimed to investigate the use of child safety restraints and examine outcomes in our community.We retrospectively queried a level 1 trauma registry for pediatric (0-18 y) MVC patients from October 2013 to December 2018. Demographic and clinical variables were recorded. Data regarding appropriate restraint use by age group were examined.Four hundred thirty-four cases of pediatric MVC were identified. Overall, 53% were improperly restrained or unrestrained. Sixty-two percent of car seat age and 51% of booster age children were improperly restrained or unrestrained altogether. Fifty-nine percent of back seat riding, seatbelt age were improperly restrained/unrestrained, with 26% riding in the front. Fifty-one percent of seatbelt-only adolescents were not belted. Black, non-Hispanic children were more often improperly restrained/unrestrained compared to Hispanics (63% versus 48%, P = 0.001). Improperly restrained/unrestrained children had higher injury severity (10% versus 4% Injury Severity Score25, P = 0.021), require operative/interventional radiology (33% versus 19%, P = 0.001), and be discharged to rehabilitation or skilled nursing facility (5.2% versus 1.5%, P = 0.033). Mortality in adolescents was higher among those unrestrained (5.2% versus 0.8%, P = 0.034).Although efforts to improve adherence to restraint regulations have greatly increased in the last decade, more than half of children in MVC are still improperly restrained. Injury prevention services and community outreach is essential to educate the most vulnerable populations, especially those with infants and toddlers, on adequate motor vehicle safety measures in our community.

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) appendicitis severity grading criteria use independent subscales for radiologists (Rad), surgeons (Surg), and pathologists (Path). We reviewed the EAST Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) database to determine rates of discordance and clinical consequences of inaccuracy.A confusion matrix was constructed for pairs among Rad, Surg, and Path. Accuracy was reported using chronologically latest diagnosis as gold standard. "Concordance" (C) was achieved when both agreed on the severity grade and "Discordance"(D) when they disagreed. A composite endpoint("COMP"= 30-d incidence of surgical site infection, abscess, wound complication, Clavien-Dindo complication, secondary intervention, ED[Emergency Department] visit, hospital readmission, and mortality) was compared between C versus D groups via χFor each pair and diagnosis, subjects were categorized as C or D and compared for the incidence of COMP. Incidence of COMP for Surg and/or Path in C versus D: 16% versus. 26% (p = 0.006, NS by Bonferroni) for acute (A), 39% versus 33% (p = 0.39) for gangrenous (G), and 48% versus 37% (p = 0.035, NS by Bonferroni) for perforated (P). For Rad and/or Path in C versus. D: 17% versus 42% (p0.001) for A, 27% versus 31% (p = 0.95) for G, and 56% versus 48% (p = 0.48) for P. For C versus D: 17% versus 40% (p0.001) for A, 36% versus 26% (p = 0.43) for G, and 51% versus 39% (p = 0.29) for P.In appendicitis treated by appendectomy, surgeons are most accurate at diagnosing acute appendicitis and least accurate at diagnosing gangrenous. Radiologists are less accurate for all categories. When the surgeon is wrong, clinical outcomes are not significantly worse. However, when the radiologist is wrong about acute appendicitis, patients have worse clinical outcomes.