Search

Background: Cervical spine (c-spine) evaluation is a critical component in trauma evaluation, and although several pediatric c-spine evaluation algorithms have been developed, none have been widely implemented. Here, we assess rates of c-spine imaging use across children's hospitals, specifically temporal trends in imaging use, variation across hospitals in imaging used, and timing of magnetic resonance imaging in admitted patients., Methods: Data from the Children's Hospital Associations Pediatric Health Information System were abstracted from 2015 to 2020. Patients younger than 18 years seen in the emergency department with an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision , code indicative of trauma and c-spine plain radiograph or computed tomography (CT) in the emergency department were included. Data visualization and descriptive statistics were used to assess rates of imaging use by age, year, hospital, injury severity, and day of service. Changes in rates of imaging use over time were evaluated via simple linear regression., Results: Across 25,238 patient encounters at 35 children's hospitals, there was an increase in use of c-spine CT from 2015 to 2020 (28.5-36.5%). There was substantial interinstitutional variation in rates of use of plain radiographs versus CT for initial evaluation of the c-spine across all age groups. Magnetic resonance imaging was obtained more than 3 days after admission in 31.5% of intensive care patients who received this imaging., Conclusion: Increasing use of CT, substantial interinstitutional variation in rates of use of plain radiographs versus CT, and heterogenous timing of magnetic resonance imaging for evaluation of the pediatric c-spine demonstrate the growing need for development and implementation of an age-specific c-spine evaluation algorithm to guide judicious use of diagnostic resources., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous research has demonstrated mixed relationships between individual neighborhood socioeconomic factors and incidences of violence, such as poverty level, population density, and income inequality. We used the Childhood Opportunity Index and Area Disadvantage Index to evaluate the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and the number of incidents of violence among children across the zip codes of Los Angeles (LA) County., Methods: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study of children younger than 18 years from 2017 to 2019 who were entered in the LA County Trauma and Emergency Medicine Information System registry with violent mechanisms of injury, including gunshot, stabbing, or assault. Mechanisms classified as self-inflicted injuries were excluded from the study. The number of incidences of violent mechanism per 100,000 persons younger than 18 years for each zip code was calculated using population data from the US Census American Community Survey 5-Year estimates from 2019. The incidences of violence per capita younger than 18 years for each zip code was compared with the zip code Area Deprivation Index and Childhood Opportunity Index using logistic regression models., Results: There were 6,791 trauma activations in LA County over the study period, 12.8% (n = 866) of which were due to violence. The mean prevalence of pediatric violent mechanism of injury per zip code was 4 cases per 100,000 persons younger than 18 years. Most injuries were the result of firearms (n = 345 [60.4%]) and occurred among Hispanic/Latino children (n = 362 [57.1%]). There were significantly greater rates of violent injury among children from highest disadvantage (odds ratio, 8.84) and lowest opportunity (odds ratio, 42.48) zip codes., Conclusion: Children living in high disadvantage or low opportunity zip codes had greater rates of violent injury. Further study of neighborhood factors is needed to develop targeted effective interventions to reduce violent injuries among children living in low opportunity areas., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: When head injured children undergo head computed tomography (CT), radiation dosing can vary considerably between institutions, potentially exposing children to excess radiation, increasing risk for malignancies later in life. We compared radiation delivery from head CTs at a level 1 pediatric trauma center (PTC) versus scans performed at referring adult general hospitals (AGHs). We hypothesized that children at our PTC receive a significantly lower radiation dose than children who underwent CT at AGHs for similar injury profiles., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients younger than 18 years who underwent CT for head injury at our PTC or at an AGH before transfer between January 1 and December 31, 2019. We analyzed demographic and clinical data. Our primary outcome was head CT radiation dose, as calculated by volumetric CT dose index (CTDIvol) and dose-length product (DLP; the product of CTDIvol and scan length). We used unadjusted bivariate and multivariable linear regression (adjusting for age, weight, sex) to compare doses between Children's Hospital Los Angeles and AGHs., Results: Of 429 scans reviewed, 193 were performed at our PTC, while 236 were performed at AGHs. Mean radiation dose administered was significantly lower at our PTC compared with AGHs (CTDIvol 20.3/DLP 408.7 vs. CTDIvol 30.6/DLP 533, p < 0.0001). This was true whether the AGH was a trauma center or not. After adjusting for covariates, findings were similar for both CTDIvol and DLP. Patients who underwent initial CT at an AGH and then underwent a second CT at our PTC received less radiation for the second CT (CTDIvol 25.6 vs. 36.5, p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Head-injured children consistently receive a lower radiation dose when undergoing initial head CT at a PTC compared with AGHs. This provides a basis for programs aimed at establishing protocols to deliver only as much radiation as necessary to children undergoing head CT., Level of Evidence: Care Management/Therapeutic, level IV., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)