Paediatric ballistic fracture patients: who has poor follow-up and why?

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS International Orthopaedics Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-28 DOI:10.1007/s00264-025-06506-3
Zachary Jodoin, Daanish Sheikh, Cameron Atkinson, Loc Uyen Vo, Alvaro Moreira, Christina Brady, Boris Zelle
{"title":"Paediatric ballistic fracture patients: who has poor follow-up and why?","authors":"Zachary Jodoin, Daanish Sheikh, Cameron Atkinson, Loc Uyen Vo, Alvaro Moreira, Christina Brady, Boris Zelle","doi":"10.1007/s00264-025-06506-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents have increased over the past decade. The standard of care for ballistic fractures in children is complex, resulting in a burden of healthcare follow-up that many families find challenging. Consistent follow-up is crucial, especially in orthopaedic trauma and firearm cases, to prevent complications. This study aims to identify demographic and clinical variables associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU) in paediatric patients with ballistic fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective registry study at a Level I trauma centre for patients aged zero to 21 who presented with a ballistic-induced fracture. Patients with isolated skull, facial, or rib fractures were excluded. Follow-up was dichotomized at the median number of follow-up days for analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of LTFU.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 144 patients with a median age of 18 years. The majority were male (89%) and White (72%). Most patients had government insurance (44%) or were uninsured (33%). The mechanism of injury was primarily assault (71%). Operative intervention occurred in 55% of cases. Key factors increasing follow-up adherence included male sex (p = 0.011), higher injury severity scores (p = 0.009), requiring operative intervention (p < 0.001), air transportation (p < 0.001), or injury at a private residence (p = 0.040). Uninsured status (p = 0.007), opioid use (p = 0.047), and greater distance from the hospital (p = 0.002) were associated with low follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identifies key factors influencing follow-up adherence in pediatric patients with ballistic fractures. Identifying these factors allows for tailoring future interventions to improve follow-up adherence for this vulnerable population.</p>","PeriodicalId":14450,"journal":{"name":"International Orthopaedics","volume":" ","pages":"1451-1460"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-025-06506-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Firearm-related injuries in children and adolescents have increased over the past decade. The standard of care for ballistic fractures in children is complex, resulting in a burden of healthcare follow-up that many families find challenging. Consistent follow-up is crucial, especially in orthopaedic trauma and firearm cases, to prevent complications. This study aims to identify demographic and clinical variables associated with loss to follow-up (LTFU) in paediatric patients with ballistic fractures.

Methods: This is a retrospective registry study at a Level I trauma centre for patients aged zero to 21 who presented with a ballistic-induced fracture. Patients with isolated skull, facial, or rib fractures were excluded. Follow-up was dichotomized at the median number of follow-up days for analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of LTFU.

Results: The study included 144 patients with a median age of 18 years. The majority were male (89%) and White (72%). Most patients had government insurance (44%) or were uninsured (33%). The mechanism of injury was primarily assault (71%). Operative intervention occurred in 55% of cases. Key factors increasing follow-up adherence included male sex (p = 0.011), higher injury severity scores (p = 0.009), requiring operative intervention (p < 0.001), air transportation (p < 0.001), or injury at a private residence (p = 0.040). Uninsured status (p = 0.007), opioid use (p = 0.047), and greater distance from the hospital (p = 0.002) were associated with low follow-up.

Conclusions: This study identifies key factors influencing follow-up adherence in pediatric patients with ballistic fractures. Identifying these factors allows for tailoring future interventions to improve follow-up adherence for this vulnerable population.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小儿弹道骨折患者:谁随访不良,原因何在?
目的:在过去十年中,儿童和青少年与枪支相关的伤害有所增加。儿童弹道骨折的治疗标准非常复杂,这给后续医疗保健带来了负担,让许多家庭感到棘手。为预防并发症,持续的随访至关重要,尤其是在骨科创伤和枪械伤病例中。本研究旨在确定与弹道骨折儿科患者失去随访(LTFU)相关的人口统计学和临床变量:这是一项在一级创伤中心进行的回顾性登记研究,研究对象为 0 至 21 岁的弹道导弹致骨折患者。不包括孤立性颅骨、面部或肋骨骨折患者。随访以随访天数的中位数进行二分分析。采用逻辑回归分析来确定LTFU的预测因素:研究共纳入 144 名患者,中位年龄为 18 岁。大多数患者为男性(89%)和白人(72%)。大多数患者有政府保险(44%)或无保险(33%)。受伤机制主要是攻击(71%)。55%的病例进行了手术干预。提高随访依从性的关键因素包括男性(p = 0.011)、较高的损伤严重程度评分(p = 0.009)、需要手术干预(p 结论:该研究确定了影响随访依从性的关键因素,并对其进行了分析:本研究确定了影响儿科弹道骨折患者坚持随访的关键因素。确定了这些因素后,就可以调整未来的干预措施,以提高这一弱势群体的随访依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
International Orthopaedics
International Orthopaedics 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.40%
发文量
360
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: International Orthopaedics, the Official Journal of the Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie (SICOT) , publishes original papers from all over the world. The articles deal with clinical orthopaedic surgery or basic research directly connected with orthopaedic surgery. International Orthopaedics will also link all the members of SICOT by means of an insert that will be concerned with SICOT matters. Finally, it is expected that news and information regarding all aspects of orthopaedic surgery, including meetings, panels, instructional courses, etc. will be brought to the attention of the readers. Manuscripts submitted for publication must contain a statement to the effect that all human studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. It should also be stated clearly in the text that all persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study should be omitted. Reports of animal experiments must state that the "Principles of laboratory animal care" (NIH publication No. 85-23, revised 1985) were followed, as well as specific national laws (e.g. the current version of the German Law on the Protection of Animals) where applicable. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or for failure to fulfil the above-mentioned requirements.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter regarding: Smoking increases the risk of early postoperative infection after elective total hip arthroplasty. Proposal and validation of an angular External Fixation Index (aEFI) for standardized reporting of gradual angular deformity correction: a time-normalized descriptive metric. Surgical complications and periprosthetic fractures following femoral impaction grafting in revision hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 4686 hips. Risk of Ossification of the Posterior Longitudinal Ligament (OPLL) following gout diagnosis: a nationwide cohort study. The diabetic shoulder: association between diabetes mellitus and adhesive capsulitis - a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1