Intracranial Empyemas in the COVID-19 Era: A New Phenomenon? A Paediatric Case Series and Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: We present the largest series of paediatric intracranial empyemas occurring after COVID-19 infection to date, and discuss the potential implications of the pandemic on this neurosurgical pathology. METHODS: Patients admitted to our centre between January 2016 and December 2021 with a confirmed radiological diagnosis of intracranial empyema were retrospectively reviewed, excluding non-otorhinological source cases. Patients were grouped according to onset before or after onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19 status. A literature review of all post-COVID-19 intracranial empyemas was performed. SPSS v27 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were diagnosed with intracranial empyema: n = 5 prior to 2020 and n = 11 after, resulting in an average annual incidence of 0.3% prior to onset of the pandemic and 1.2% thereafter. Of those diagnosed since the pandemic, 4 (25%) were confirmed to have COVID-19 on recent PCR test. Time from COVID-19 infection until empyema diagnosis ranged from 15 days to 8 weeks. Mean age for post-COVID-19 cases was 8.5 years (range: 7-10 years) compared to 11 years in non-COVID cases (range: 3-14 years). Streptococcus intermedius was grown in all cases of post-COVID-19 empyema, and 3 of 4 (75%) post-COVID-19 cases developed cerebral sinus thromboses, compared to 3 of 12 (25%) non-COVID-19 cases. All cases were discharged home with no residual deficit. CONCLUSION: Our post-COVID-19 intracranial empyema series demonstrates a greater proportion of cerebral sinus thromboses than non-COVID-19 cases, potentially reflecting the thrombogenic effects of COVID-19. Incidence of intracranial empyema at our centre has increased since the start of the pandemic, causes of which require further investigation and multicentre collaboration.

Electrically assisted pedal cycles: is new legislation required to mitigate increased head injury risk?

OBJECTIVES: Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycles (EAPCs) are pedal bikes that are fitted with a motor that travel at higher speeds than conventional bicycles. Recent international data shows that there is an association with increased severity of injury, particularly in paediatric populations. Currently, EAPCs are subject to the same legislation regarding helmet use as pedal bikes in the UK and EU which does not mandate the use of a helmet. Here we examine safety concerns surrounding EAPCs in the context of existing EU and UK legislation to assess whether changes to these should be made by public health bodies to mitigate the increased risk of injury. METHODS: A retrospective international literature review looking at electric bicycle-related trauma and legislation was conducted using a systematic search of internet databases. Peer-reviewed articles and online resources were reviewed based on relevance to the above objective. RESULTS: EAPCS can travel at up to 17.5 mph, resulting in higher speeds of travel and collision. The use of EAPCs has been associated with increased severity of head injuries. Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the severity of head injury in accidents involving both EAPCs and pedal cycles. Healthcare providers should pay extra attention to the possibility of severe injuries when a patient had a bicycle accident with an EAPC, especially in paediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS: Given that EAPCS have been associated internationally with increased severity of head injuries we propose that existing EU and UK legislation may not be fit for purpose with respects to increased EAPC usage and criteria for impact protection of existing helmets. Further research and audit with more accurate recording of data associated with EAPCs use and associated injuries would inform enhanced regulation regarding EAPC usage in the future.