When public health crises collide: 5 years of pediatric firearm injury prevention opportunities

Objectives: Prior publications on pediatric firearm-related injuries have emphasized significant social disparities. The pandemic has heightened a variety of these societal stresses. We sought to evaluate how we must now adapt our injury prevention strategies. Patients and methods: Firearm-related injuries in children 15 years old and under at five urban level 1 trauma centers between January 2016 and December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Age, gender, race/ethnicity, Injury Severity Score, situation, timing of injury around school/curfew, and mortality were evaluated. Medical examiner data identified additional deaths. Results: There were 615 injuries identified including 67 from the medical examiner. Overall, 80.2% were male with median age of 14 years (range 0-15; IQR 12-15). Black children comprised 77.2% of injured children while only representing 36% of local schools. Community violence (intentional interpersonal or bystander) injuries were 67.2% of the cohort; 7.8% were negligent discharges; and 2.6% suicide. Median age for intentional interpersonal injuries was 14 years (IQR 14-15) compared with 12 years (IQR 6-14, p Conclusions: Pediatric firearm-related injuries have increased during the past 5 years. Prevention strategies have not been effective during this time interval. Prevention opportunities were identified specifically in the preteenage years to address interpersonal de-escalation training, safe handling/storage, and suicide mitigation. Efforts directed at those most vulnerable need to be reconsidered and examined for their utility and effectiveness. Level of evidence: Level III; epidemiological study type.</p

Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial

BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p \u3c 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p \u3c 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p \u3e 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p \u3c 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p \u3c 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV