4.5 Article

Head injury from falls in children younger than 6 years of age

期刊

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
卷 100, 期 11, 页码 1032-1037

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307119

关键词

-

资金

  1. Health Quality Improvement Partnership
  2. MRC [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/L01629X/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The risk of serious head injury (HI) from a fall in a young Child is ill defined. The relationship between the object fallen from and prevalence of intracranial injury (ICI) or skull fracture is described. Method Cross-sectional study of His from falls in children (<6 years) admitted to UK hospitals, analysed according to the object fallen from and associated Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) or alert, voice, pain, unresponsive (AVPU) and CT scan results. Results Of 1775 cases ascertained (median age 18 months, 54.7% boys), 87% (1552) had a GCS=15/AVPU=alert. 19.3% (342) had a CT scan: 32% (110/342) were abnormal; equivalent to 5.9% of the overall population, 16.9% (58) had isolated skull fractures and 13.7% (47) had ICI (49% (23/47) had an associated skull fracture). The prevalence of ICI increased with neurological compromise; however, 12% of children with a GCS=15/AVPU=alert had ICI. When compared to falls from standing, falls from a person's arms (233 children (mean age 1 year)) had a significant relative OR for a skull fracture/ICI of 6.94(95% Cl 3.54 to 13.6), falls from a building (eg, window or attic) (mean age 3 years) OR 6.84 (95% Cl 2.65 to 17.6) and from an infant or child product (mean age 21 months) OR 2.75(95% Cl 1.36 to 5.65). Conclusions Most His from a fall in these children admitted to hospital were minor. Infants, dropped from a carer's arms, those who fell from infant products, a window, wall or from an attic had the greatest chance of ICI or skull fracture. These data inform prevention and the assessment of the likelihood of serious injury when the object fallen from is known.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据