Is computed tomography cystography indicated in children with pelvic fractures? / 中华创伤杂志(英文版)

PURPOSE@#Pelvic fracture evaluation with abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) and formal CT cystography for rule out of urine bladder injury have been commonly employed in pediatric trauma patients. The additional delayed imaging required to obtain optimal CT cystography is, however, associated with increased doses of ionizing radiation to pelvic organs and represent a significant risk in the pediatric population for future carcinogenic risk. We hypothesized that avoidance of routine CT cystography among pediatric pelvic fracture victims would not result in an appreciable rate of missed bladder injuries and would aid in mitigating the radiation exposure risk associated with these additional images.@*METHODS@#A retrospective cohort study involving blunt trauma pelvic fractures among pediatric trauma patients (age<14) between the years 1997 and 2016 was conducted utilizing the Israeli National Trauma Registry. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS statistical software version 9.4 via the tests of Chi-square test and two-sided Fisher's exact test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.@*RESULTS@#A total of 1072 children were identified from the registry for inclusion. Mean age of patients was 7.7 years (range 0-14) and 713 (66.5%) were male. Overall mortality in this population was 4.1% (44/1072). Only 2.1% (23) of pediatric patients with pelvic fractures had bladder injury identified, with just 9 children having intraperitoneal bladder rupture (0.8% of all the patients).@*CONCLUSION@#The vast majority of blunt pediatric trauma victims with pelvic fractures do not have urine bladder injuries. Based on our study results we do not recommend the routine utilization of CT cystography in this unique population.

Evaluation of differences in injury patterns according to seat position in trauma victims survived traffic accidents / 中华创伤杂志(英文版)

<p><b>PURPOSE</b>Investigation of injury patterns epidemiology among car occupants may help to develop different therapeutic approach according to the seat position. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare differences in the incidence of serious injuries, between occupants in different locations in private cars.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A retrospective study including trauma patients who were involved in motor vehicle accidents and admitted alive to 20 hospitals (6 level Ⅰ trauma centers and 14 level Ⅱ trauma centers). We examined the incidence of injures with abbreviated injury score 3 and more, and compared their occurrence between seat locations.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The study included 28,653 trauma patients, drivers account for 60.8% (17,417). Front passenger mortality was 0.47% higher than in drivers. Rear seat passengers were at greater risk (10.26%) for traumatic brain injuries than front seat passengers (7.48%) and drivers (7.01%). Drivers are less likely to suffer from serious abdominal injuries (3.84%) compared to the passengers (front passengers - 5.91%, rear passengers - 5.46%).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Out of victims who arrived alive to the hospital, highest mortality was found in front seat passengers. The rate of serious chest injuries was higher as well. Rear seat passengers are at greater risk for serious traumatic brain injuries. All passengers have a greater incidence of abdominal injuries. These findings need to be addressed in order to develop "customized" therapeutic policy in trauma victims.</p>