Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trauma activations at a pediatric level 1 trauma center in New York.

BACKGROUND: The disruptive effects on society and medical systems due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are substantial and far-reaching. The effect of the pandemic on the quantity and quality of pediatric traumas is unclear and has a direct bearing on how scarce hospital resources should be allocated in a pandemic situation. METHODS: A retrospective review of the trauma registry was performed for trauma activations in the years 2018 through 2020 during the months of March, April, and May. Demographic and injury specific datapoints were compared across calendar years. RESULTS: There were 111, 100, and 52 trauma activations during the study interval in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. There were fewer highest severity level activations in 2020 compared to 2018 and 2019 (1 vs 5 and 9; p < 0.01). The median Injury Severity Score was 5 in 2020 compared to 4 in both 2018 and 2019 (p < 0.01). More patients went directly to the operating room in 2020 compared to prior years (21.2% vs 8% and 6.1%; p < 0.01). There were fewer discharges from the emergency department (ED) (12.1% vs 36.6% and 32.7%). No increase in the number of child abuse reports and investigations was noted. There was no difference in the proportion of blunt versus penetrating trauma between years (p = 0.57). No pedestrians were struck by automobiles in 2020 compared to 12 and 14 in 2018 and 2019. However, there were a greater proportion of injuries from falls during 2020 compared to prior years. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer trauma activations during the peak of the COVID pandemic compared to prior years. Due to the decrease in trauma volume during the peak of the pandemic, hospital resources could potentially be reallocated toward areas of greater need. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Retrospective cohort study using historical controls.

Scoping review of non-thermal technologies for endovenous ablation for treatment of venous insufficiency.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this review article was to compare the outcomes of newer non-thermal endovenous ablation techniques to thermal ablation techniques for the treatment of symptomatic venous insufficiency. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Three independent reviewers screened PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify relevant studies. A total of 1173 articles were identified from database search that met our inclusion criteria. Two articles were identified through reference search. Removal of duplicates from our original search yielded 695 articles. We then screened these articles and assessed 173 full-text articles for eligibility. Subsequent to exclusion, 11 full-text articles were selected for final inclusion. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The non-thermal techniques are similar to thermal techniques in terms of a high technical success rate, closure rate at 12 months, change in Venous Clinical Severity Score and change in quality of life after procedure. However, the length of procedure is shorter for non-thermal modalities and patient comfort is improved with lower pain scores. Return to work may also be earlier after non-thermal ablation. The rates of bruising, phlebitis and paresthesia are higher after thermal ablation. CONCLUSIONS: The non-thermal modalities are safe and effective in treating venous reflux and have shown improved patient comfort and shorter length of procedure which may make them favorable for use compared to the thermal modalities.