Comparison of the Pediatric Resuscitation and Trauma Outcome (PRESTO) Model and Pediatric Trauma Scoring Systems in a Middle-Income Country.

BACKGROUND: The pediatric resuscitation and trauma outcome (PRESTO) model was developed to aid comparisons of risk-adjusted mortality after injury in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to validate PRESTO using data from a middle-income country (MIC) trauma registry and compare its performance to the Pediatric Trauma Score (PTS), Revised Trauma Score, and pediatric age-adjusted shock index (SIPA). METHODS: We included children (age < 15 years) admitted to a single trauma center in South Africa from December 2012 to January 2019. We excluded patients missing variables necessary for the PRESTO model-age, systolic blood pressure, pulse, oxygen saturation, neurologic status, and airway support. Trauma scores were assigned retrospectively. PRESTO's previously high-income country (HIC)-validated optimal threshold was compared to MIC-validated threshold using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROC). Prediction of in-hospital death using trauma scoring systems was compared using ROC analysis. RESULTS: Of 1160 injured children, 988 (85%) had complete data for calculation of PRESTO. Median age was 7 (IQR: 4, 11), and 67% were male. Mortality was 2% (n = 23). Mean predicted mortality was 0.5% (range 0-25.7%, AUROC 0.93). Using the HIC-validated threshold, PRESTO had a sensitivity of 26.1% and a specificity of 99.7%. The MIC threshold showed a sensitivity of 82.6% and specificity of 89.4%. The MIC threshold yielded superior discrimination (AUROC 0.86 [CI 0.78, 0.94]) compared to the previously established HIC threshold (0.63 [CI 0.54, 0.72], p < 0.0001). PRESTO showed superior prediction of in-hospital death compared to PTS and SIPA (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PRESTO can be applied in MIC settings and discriminates between children at risk for in-hospital death following trauma. Further research should clarify optimal decision thresholds for quality improvement and benchmarking in LMIC settings.

Masculinizing chest wall gender-affirming surgery: Clinical outcomes of 73 subcutaneous mastectomies using the double-incision and semicircular incision techniques.

Masculinizing chest wall gender-affirming surgery is an important element in the treatment of gender dysphoria. In this study, we report an institutional series of subcutaneous mastectomies and aim to identify the risk factors for major complications and revision surgery. A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent primary masculinizing top surgery via subcutaneous mastectomy at our institution through July 2021 was performed. Demographics and clinical characteristics were recorded as well as major complications and revision surgeries. Time-to-event analyses were performed to assess predictors of major complications and revision surgery. Seventy-three consecutive patients (146 breasts) were included. The mean age and the mean body mass index were 25.2 ± 7 years and 27.6 ± 6.5 kg/m2, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 7.9 ± 7.5 months. None of the patients had a history of chest wall radiation or breast surgery. Double incision with free nipple grafting was the most common technique (n = 130, 89%), followed by periareolar semicircular incision (n = 16, 11%). The mean resection weight was 524.7 ± 377.7 g. Concomitant suction-assisted lipectomy was performed in 48 (32.9%) cases. The rate of major complications was 2.7%. Revision surgery was performed in 8 (5.4%) cases. Concomitant liposuction was significantly associated with a lower rate of revision surgery (p = 0.026). Masculinizing chest wall gender-affirming surgery is a safe procedure with a low rate of revision. Concomitant liposuction significantly reduced the need of revision surgery. Future studies utilizing patient-reported outcomes are still required to better assess the success of this procedure.