Urban drinking and driving: comparison of electric scooter and bicycle related accidents in facial fracture patients.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, electric scooters (e-scooter) have emerged as an alternative mode of urban transport due to their availability and effortless use. However, e-scooter-related trauma and injuries, especially to the head, have received wide media coverage and raised public concern about their safety. We aim to determine and compare clinically relevant variables, incidence, and severity between bicycle and e-scooter-related facial fractures and potential protective measures for injury prevention. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective study comprised all patients admitted to a tertiary trauma center with bicycle or e-scooter-related facial fractures between January 2019 and October 2020. Patient- and injury-related variables, including demographics, injury mechanisms, helmet use, influence of alcohol, types of facial injuries, types of other injuries, given treatment, and hospital stay, were collected, analysed, and compared between bicycle and e-scooter injuries. RESULTS: Altogether 169 patients with facial fractures, 124 bicycle-related injuries (73.4%) and 45 e-scooter-related injuries (26.6%) were included. Alcohol involvement was significantly higher in e-scooter patients (88.9%) than in bicycle patients (31.5%) (p<0.001). Driving under the influence of alcohol was associated with driving without a helmet in both groups (p<0.001). In multivariate analyses, e-scooter accidents were 18 times more likely to occur under the influence of alcohol (OR 17.85, p<0.001) and were more likely to involve collision with a stationary object (OR 3.81, p=0.028). E-scooter patients were significantly younger (OR 0.95, p<0.001) and had significantly more cranial fractures (OR 10.15, p=0.014) than bicycle patients. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients in bicycle accidents, facial fracture patients injured in e-scooter accidents are younger, are more likely under the influence of alcohol, and sustain more severe craniofacial skeleton fractures. Our results for both groups of patients advocate stricter adherence to helmet and road safety legislation as well as public education for injury prevention.

Assault-related facial fractures: does the injury mechanism matter?

This study clarified the injury characteristics and occurrence of associated injuries in patients with assault-related facial fractures. Data from 840 assault-related facial fracture patients were included; demographic factors, facial fracture type, associated injuries, alcohol use, and injury mechanisms were recorded. Assault mechanisms most often included combinations of different mechanisms (57.5%) and resulted in the victim falling (50.1%). The perpetrator was most commonly a stranger (52.5%) and acted alone (57.7%). A total of 123 patients (14.6%) had associated injuries, with the most common being traumatic brain injury. Associated injuries occurred most frequently in patients with combined fractures of the facial thirds (24.2%) and upper third fractures (42.9%). The most significant differentiating factors for associated injuries were the number of perpetrators, falling, the use of an offensive weapon, and if the events of the assault remained unknown. In adjusted logistic regression analyses, statistically significant associations with associated injuries were found for age (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.07; P < 0.001), falling due to the assault (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.49-5.50; P = 0.002), and upper third facial fractures (OR 6.93, 95% CI 2.06-23.33; P = 0.002). A single punch also caused severe injuries and should therefore not be overlooked, as this can be as dangerous as other assault mechanisms.

Blunt cerebrovascular injuries in the craniofacial fracture population-Are we screening the right patients?

Current knowledge of blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) in craniomaxillofacial fracture (CMF) patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to determine the occurrence of BCVIs in patients with all types of CMF. This retrospective study included CMF patients in a level 1 trauma centre during a 3-year period. Patients who were not imaged with computed tomography angiography and patients with mechanisms other than blunt injury were excluded. The primary outcome variable was BCVI. A total of 753 patients were included in the analysis. A BCVI was detected in 4.4% of the patients screened. BCVIs occurred in 8.7% of cranial fracture patients, 7.1% of combined craniofacial fracture patients, and 3.1% of facial fracture patients. The risk of BCVI was significantly increased in patients with isolated cranial fractures (odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-5.50; P=0.017), those involved in motor vehicle accidents (OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.63-7.17; P=0.001), and those sustaining high-energy injuries (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.57-6.40; P=0.001). BCVIs in CMF patients are relatively common in high-energy injuries. However, these injuries also occur in minor traumas. Imaging thresholds should be kept low in this patient population when BCVIs are suspected.