Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric solid organ injury care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Observed variations in the management of pediatric solid organ injuries (SOIs) may be due to difficulty in finding and integrating recommendations from multiple clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) with heterogeneous methodological approaches. We aimed to systematically review CPG recommendations for pediatric SOIs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting pediatric SOI populations, using Medical Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Web of Science, and websites of clinical organizations. Pairs of reviewers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the quality of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II tool. We synthesized recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs using a recommendations matrix based on Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: We identified eight CPGs, including three rated moderate or high quality. Methodological weaknesses included lack of stakeholder involvement beyond surgeons, consideration of applicability (e.g., implementation tools), and clarity around the definition of pediatric populations. Five of the 15 recommendations from moderate to high-quality CPGs were based on moderate quality evidence or were rated as strong; these reflected nonoperative management and angioembolization for renal injuries and required length of stay for liver and spleen injuries. CONCLUSION: We identified 15 recommendations on pediatric SOI management from 3 moderate or high-quality CPGs, but only one third were based on at least moderate-quality evidence or were rated as strong. Our results prompt the following recommendations for future CPG development or updates: (1) include all types of clinicians involved in the care of pediatric SOIs and patient and family representatives in the process, (2) develop clear definitions of the target population, and (3) provide advice and tools to promote implementation. Results also underline the urgent need for more rigorous research to support strong evidence-based recommendations in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.

Clinical practice guideline recommendations for pediatric injury care: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests the presence of deficiencies in the quality of care provided to up to half of all paediatric trauma patients in Canada, the USA and Australia. Lack of adherence to evidence-based recommendations may be driven by lack of knowledge of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), heterogeneity in recommendations or concerns about their quality. We aim to systematically review CPG recommendations for paediatric injury care and appraise their quality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will identify CPG recommendations through a comprehensive search strategy including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials and websites of organisations publishing recommendations on paediatric injury care. We will consider CPGs including at least one recommendation targeting paediatric injury populations on any diagnostic or therapeutic intervention from the acute phase of care with any comparator developed in high-income countries in the last 15 years (January 2007 to a maximum of 6 months prior to submission). Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full text of eligible articles, extract data and evaluate the quality of CPGs and their recommendations using Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and AGREE Recommendations Excellence instruments, respectively. We will synthesise evidence on recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework and present results within a recommendations matrix. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not a requirement as this study is based on available published data. The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at international scientific meetings and distributed to healthcare providers. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021226934).

Management and outcomes of paediatric ileocolic intussusception at a paediatric tertiary care hospital: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reduction of ileocolic intussusception is important to minimize the compromise in blood flow to the affected bowel segment. This study aimed to quantify the potentially modifiable time between diagnosis and initiation of pneumatic reduction, identify factors associated with delays, and characterize the outcomes of pneumatic reduction in a recent cohort. METHODS: This retrospective observational study occurred at a tertiary care paediatric hospital with a consecutive sample of all children with ileocolic intussusception September 2015 through September 2018. The primary outcome was the time between ultrasound diagnosis of intussusception and the beginning of pneumatic reduction. Independent variables were age of the patient, time of day of arrival, transfer from another facility, and intravenous access prior to ultrasound. Outcomes of pneumatic reduction were expressed as proportions. RESULTS: There were 103 cases of ileocolic intussusception (among 257,282 visits) during the study period. The median time between diagnostic confirmation and initiation of reduction was 36 minutes. This was shorter for transferred patients and children with intravenous access prior to ultrasound. One perforation was identified at the beginning of reduction, without hemodynamic instability. Six children (5.8%) underwent either open (n=4) or laparoscopic surgery (n=2) for reduction failure. CONCLUSION: The median delay between diagnosis and initiation of reduction at this paediatric hospital was short, especially among patients transferred with a suspicion of intussusception and children with intravenous access prior to diagnosis. Complications from pneumatic reduction were infrequent.

Management and outcomes of peripancreatic fluid collections and pseudocysts following non-operative management of pancreatic injuries in children.

BACKGROUND: Peripancreatic fluid collection and pseudocyst development is a common sequela following non-operative management (NOM) of pancreatic injuries in children. Our purpose was to review management strategies and assess outcomes. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review was conducted of children treated with NOM following blunt pancreatic injury at 22 pediatric trauma centers between the years 2010 and 2015. Organized fluid collections were called "acute peripancreatic fluid collection" (APFC) if identified < 4 weeks and "pseudocyst" if > 4 weeks following injury. Data analysis included descriptive statistics Wilcoxon rank-sum, Kruskal-Wallis and t tests. RESULTS: One hundred patients with blunt pancreatic injury were identified. Median age was 8.5 years (range 1-16). Forty-two percent of patients (42/100) developed organized fluid collections: APFC 64% (27/42) and pseudocysts 36% (15/42). Median time to identification was 12 days (range 7-42). Most collections (64%, 27/42) were observed and 36% (15/42) underwent drainage: 67% (10/15) percutaneous drain, 7% (1/15) needle aspiration, and 27% (4/15) endoscopic transpapillary stent. A definitive procedure (cystogastrostomy/pancreatectomy) was required in 26% (11/42). Patients with larger collections (≥ 7.1 cm) had longer time to resolution. Comparison of outcomes in patients with observation vs drainage revealed no significant differences in TPN use (79% vs 75%, p = 1.00), hospital length of stay (15 vs 25 median days, p = 0.11), time to tolerate regular diet (12 vs 11 median days, p = 0.47), or need for definitive procedure (failure rate 30% vs 20%, p = 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Following NOM of blunt pancreatic injuries in children, organized fluid collections commonly develop. If discovered early, most can be observed successfully, and drainage does not appear to improve clinical outcomes. Larger size predicts prolonged recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III STUDY TYPE: Case series.

Comparison of diagnostic imaging modalities for the evaluation of pancreatic duct injury in children: a multi-institutional analysis from the Pancreatic Trauma Study Group.

PURPOSE: Determining the integrity of the pancreatic duct is important in high-grade pancreatic trauma to guide decision making for operative vs non-operative management. Computed tomography (CT) is generally an inadequate study for this purpose, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is sometimes obtained to gain additional information regarding the duct. The purpose of this multi-institutional study was to directly compare the results from CT and MRCP for evaluating pancreatic duct disruption in children with these rare injuries. METHODS: Retrospective study of data obtained from eleven pediatric trauma centers from 2010 to 2015. Children up to age 18 with suspected blunt pancreatic duct injury who had both CT and MRCP within 1 week of injury were included. Imaging findings of both studies were directly compared and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi square, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and McNemar's tests. RESULTS: Data were collected for 21 patients (mean age 7.8 years). The duct was visualized more often on MRCP than CT (48 vs 5%, p < 0.05). Duct disruption was confirmed more often on MRCP than CT (24 vs 0%), suspected based on secondary findings equally (38 vs 38%), and more often indeterminate on CT (62 vs 38%). Overall, MRCP was not superior to CT for determining duct integrity (62 vs 38%, p = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In children with blunt pancreatic injury, MRCP is more useful than CT for identifying the pancreatic duct but may not be superior for confirmation of duct integrity. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERCP) may be necessary to confirm duct disruption when considering pancreatic resection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Validation of the Sainte-Justine Head Trauma Pathway for children younger than two years of age.

SUMMARY: The Sainte-Justine Head Trauma Pathway helps physicians' decision-making in the evaluation of head trauma in young children. We evaluated the pathway to identify clinically important traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) among children younger than two years who presented to a pediatric emergency department for a head trauma. The primary outcome was ciTBI, defined as a TBI complicated by death, neurosurgery, intubation or hospitalization for more than one night. Among 2258 children, we reviewed the charts of all hospitalized children (n = 100) and a random sample of nonhospitalized children (n = 101) and found a ciTBI in 26 patients. The Sainte-Justine Head Trauma Pathway and the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network Pediatric Head Injury Prediction Rule both had a sensitivity of 96% (95% confidence interval 81%-100%). We found that the Sainte-Justine Head Trauma Pathway does not improve the identification of ciTBI among young children with head trauma.

Proposed clinical pathway for nonoperative management of high-grade pediatric pancreatic injuries based on a multicenter analysis: A pediatric trauma society collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for nonoperative management (NOM) of high-grade pancreatic injuries in children have not been established, and wide practice variability exists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate common clinical strategies across multiple pediatric trauma centers to develop a consensus-based standard clinical pathway. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective review was conducted of children with high-grade (American Association of Surgeons for Trauma grade III-V) pancreatic injuries treated with NOM between 2010 and 2015. Data were collected on demographics, clinical management, and outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-six patients were treated at 20 pediatric trauma centers. Median age was 9 years (range, 1-18 years). The majority (73%) of injuries were American Association of Surgeons for Trauma grade III, 24% were grade IV, and 3% were grade V. Median time from injury to presentation was 12 hours and median ISS was 16 (range, 4-66). All patients had computed tomography scan and serum pancreatic enzyme levels at presentation, but serial enzyme level monitoring was variable. Pancreatic enzyme levels did not correlate with injury grade or pseudocyst development. Parenteral nutrition was used in 68% and jejunal feeds in 31%. 3Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram was obtained in 25%. An organized peripancreatic fluid collection present for at least 7 days after injury was identified in 59% (42 of 71). Initial management of these included: observation 64%, percutaneous drain 24%, and endoscopic drainage 10% and needle aspiration 2%. Clear liquids were started at a median of 6 days (IQR, 3-13 days) and regular diet at a median of 8 days (IQR 4-20 days). Median hospitalization length was 13 days (IQR, 7-24 days). Injury grade did not account for prolonged time to initiating oral diet or hospital length; indicating that the variability in these outcomes was largely due to different surgeon preferences. CONCLUSION: High-grade pancreatic injuries in children are rare and significant variability exists in NOM strategies, which may affect outcomes and effective resource utilization. A standard clinical pathway is proposed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level V (case series).

Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Appendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient and parental interest in non-operative treatment of acute appendicitis with antibiotics as opposed to surgery. To date no multicentre randomised controlled trials that are appropriately powered to determine efficacy of non-operative treatment (antibiotics) for acute appendicitis in children compared with surgery (appendectomy) have been performed. METHODS: Multicentre, international, randomised controlled trial with a non-inferiority design. Children (age 5-16 years) with a clinical and/or radiological diagnosis of acute uncomplicated appendicitis will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either laparoscopic appendectomy or treatment with intravenous (minimum 12 hours) followed by oral antibiotics (total course 10 days). Allocation to groups will be stratified by gender, duration of symptoms (> or <48 hours) and centre. Children in both treatment groups will follow a standardised treatment pathway. Primary outcome is treatment failure defined as additional intervention related to appendicitis requiring general anaesthesia within 1 year of randomisation (including recurrent appendicitis) or negative appendectomy. Important secondary outcomes will be reported and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin. Planned sample size is 978 children. DISCUSSION: The APPY trial will be the first multicentre randomised trial comparing non-operative treatment with appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children. The results of this trial have the potential to revolutionise the treatment of this common gastrointestinal emergency. The randomised design will limit the effect of bias on outcomes seen in other studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02687464. Registered on Jan 13th 2016.

Management of skull fractures in children less than 1 year of age.

BACKGROUND: Management of skull fracture (SF) in pediatric patients varies from observation in the emergency department (ED) to floor admission. Since 2010, a protocol for admitting children with SF specifically to the trauma service was implemented at our institution. The purpose of our study was to review the management of children with SF younger than 1 year of age. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients between 0 and 1year of age seen in our ED for a SF was done from 2010 to 2013. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients with a mean age of 4.5months (1day-12months) were identified. Of these, 131 patients (73%) were admitted. Mean length of stay was 1.6days. Admitted patients had more depressed (21 vs. 8%) and diastatic (43 vs. 14%) fractures. Fifty-seven children had intracranial hemorrhages (32%) but only 8 patients required non-emergent surgery for depressed fractures. Admission to the trauma service increased from none to 76% with phone follow-ups increasing from 12% to 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Instituting a protocol allowed a safer management of patients with SF. Moreover, we argue that asymptomatic infants with isolated SF can be safely discharged home after brief observation in the ED.

Inappropriate use of infant seating devices increases risks of injury.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to investigate the epidemiology and resulting injuries following falls sustained by infants seated in a variety of seating devices. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of a cohort of infants less than 12 months old who presented to our institution from 1991 to 2010 after a fall from various seating devices was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred five infants were identified, including 146 patients who were admitted to our institution (1991-2010) and 59 patients who were seen and discharged from the ED (2008-2010). Mean age of admitted infants was younger (3.5 vs. 5.3 months). Two patients (1%) required surgery for a depressed skull fracture. Overall, 18% had an intra-cranial hemorrhage. More patients requiring an admission secondary to their injuries fell from a table or counter (42% vs. 27%). CONCLUSION: Falls sustained by children seated in a variety of devices are frequent. Failure to restrain children in seating devices or improperly placing them on a table/counter is associated with more significant injuries. In order to minimize such injuries, it is important to educate caregivers of the risk in utilizing such seating devices.

Clinical algorithm and resource use in the management of children with minor head trauma.

PURPOSE: There are no clear guidelines for the management of minor head injury, including the use of skull x-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans of the head. This is reflected in clinical practice by a wide variability in imaging study use and by the fact that some patients are discharged home from the emergency room (ER), whereas others are admitted to the hospital with or without a period of observation before admission. To address this issue, we proposed and applied a new protocol for minor head injury at our institution. METHODS: Between January 2004 and December 2005, 417 patients presented to the emergency department at our institution with minor head injury. All of them had fallen from less than 1 m. Every chart was retrospectively evaluated, and pertinent data were extracted. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 9.8 months (2 weeks to 32 months). One hundred fifty-three had a skull x-ray, and 13 had a CT scan of the head. Of the 153 patients who had a skull x-ray, only 15 had a skull fracture. Of these 15 patients, 3 also had a CT scan of the head that confirmed the diagnosis of skull fracture. Of the 13 CT scans that were done, only these 3 were positive. Eleven patients were kept in the ER for 6 hours for close observation, and 5 of these were eventually admitted. Overall, 8 patients were admitted to the hospital for observation. Of these 8 patients, 7 had a skull x-ray, from which 5 were positive. Only 2 of the admitted patients had a CT scan, and they were both positive for a skull fracture. One of the CT also demonstrated a subdural hematoma along with subarachnoid hemorrhage. These 2 patients also had a positive skull x-ray. None of the patients that were admitted had headaches or neurologic impairments. The mean age of the patients admitted was 3.8 months (2 weeks to 12 months). The mean hospital stay was 1.2 days (1-3 days). CONCLUSION: Only 10% of the skull x-rays and CT scans were positive for a skull fracture, which led to an admission in half of these patients. The other half was mainly discharged from ER after being observed. Several patients underwent a skull x-ray that we feel was not necessary in the management of their minor head injury. For those who had a head CT scan, only one revealed additional information and none of them had an impact on the final management. Observation in the ER could have been reasonable for most cases.

Utility of hospital admission after successful enema reduction of ileocolic intussusception.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital observation of 24 to 48 hours has been the standard practice after successful enema reduction (ER) of ileocolic intussusceptions, but this practice has not been validated. We evaluated retrospectively the safety of short-term emergency department observation. METHODS: Between April 2000 and October 2004, 121 patients presented to the emergency department with ileocolic intussusception, and all had ER attempts. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients had successful reduction, 25 were excluded for failed reduction or unconfirmed diagnosis, and another 16 needed observation anyway for high white blood count or persistent postreduction pain. Of the remaining 80 patients, the mean time from symptoms to reduction was 45.9 hours (4 hours to 10 days). All patients, except one, were admitted for observation for a mean period of 1.6 days (8 hours to 6.5 days). No complications were associated with air ER; however, 6 (7.5%) patients had reintussusception during the observation period and 5 (6.3%) recurred after discharge. The mean intervals for recurrence postreduction were 17.8 hours and 14.5 months with no mortality or morbidity in either. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term emergency department observation could be a safe practice in more than 90% of the selected cases, recurrence of intussusception outside the hospital is not associated with unfavorable outcome, and routine admission is not warranted.