User login
Let ’em Play: In Defense of Youth Football
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.
Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.
I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.
Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.
Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.
Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.
As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
PPEs — Haystacks and Needles
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
A story in a recent edition of this newspaper reported on a disturbing, but not surprising, study by a third-year pediatric resident at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine. Looking at just the Preparticipaton Physical Evaluations (PPEs) she could find at her institution, Tammy Ng, MD, found that only slightly more than a quarter “addressed all the criteria” on the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) standardized form. Although more than half included inquiries about respiratory symptoms, less than half contained questions about a cardiovascular history. The lack of consistency across all the forms reviewed was the most dramatic finding.
Having participated in more than my share of PPEs as a school physician, a primary care pediatrician, and a multi-sport high school and college athlete, I was not surprised by Dr. Ng’s findings. In high school my teammates and I considered our trip to see Old Doctor Hinds (not his real name) in the second week of August “a joke.” A few of us with “white coat” hypertension, like myself, had to be settled down and have our blood pressure retaken. But other than that wrinkle, we all passed. The football coach had his own eyeball screening tool and wouldn’t allow kids he thought were too small to play football.
Reading this study rekindled a question that surfaced every sports season as I faced days of looking at forms, many of them fished out of backpacks in a crumbled mass. I squeezed in new patients or old patients who were out of date on their physicals, not wanting any youngster to miss out on the politically important first practice of the pre-season. Why was I doing it? What was my goal? In more than four hundred thousand office visit encounters, I had never knowingly missed a case that resulted in a sudden sports-related death. Where was the evidence that PPEs had any protective value? Now a third-year pediatric resident is bold enough to tell us that we have done such a sloppy job of collecting data that we aren’t anywhere close to having the raw material with which to answer my decades-old questions and concerns.
Has our needles-in-the-haystack strategy saved any lives? I suspect a few of you can describe scenarios in which asking the right question of the right person at the right time prevented a sports-related sudden death. But, looking at bigger picture, what were the downsides for the entire population with a system in which those questions weren’t asked?
How many young people didn’t play a sport because their parents couldn’t afford the doctor visit or maintain a family structure that would allow them to find the lost form and drive it to the doctor’s office on Friday afternoon. Not every athletic director or physician’s staff is flexible or sympathetic enough to deal with that level of family dysfunction.
The AAP has recently focused its attention on the problems associated with overspecialization and overtraining in an attempt to make youth sports more safe. But, in reality that target audience is a small, elite, highly motivated group. The bigger problem is the rest of the population, in which too few children are physically active and participation in organized youth sports is decreasing. There are many reasons for that trajectory, but shouldn’t we be doing everything we can to reduce the barriers preventing young people from being more active? One of those barriers is a PPE system that is so riddled with inconsistencies that we have no idea as to its utility.
Certainly, bigger and more robust studies can be done, but there will be a long lead time to determine if a better PPE system might be effective. But there is a different approach. Instead of looking for needles with retrospective questions relying on patients’ and parents’ memories, why not use AI to mine patients’ old records for any language that may be buried in the history that could raise a yellow flag. Of course not every significant episode of syncope results in a chart entry. But, if we can make EMRs do our bidding instead being a thorn in our sides, records from long-forgotten episodes at an urgent care center while on vacation should merge with patients global record and light up when AI goes hunting.
If we can get our act together, the process that my teenage buddies and I considered a joke could become an efficient and possibly life-saving exercise.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
The Inconsistency of Preparticipation Sports Evaluations Raises Issues About Their Utility
TORONTO — There is little consistency in the elements and types of information captured in preparticipation physical evaluations (PPE) for sports among school-aged children, which is complicating efforts to determine if they have value, according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The study concept developed when Tammy Ng, MD, a third-year resident in pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine in Sacramento, was surprised to learn that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had been issuing a standard-of-care PPE for decades.
Dr. Ng had a long-standing interest in pediatric sports medicine and thought that if she was unfamiliar with this form, which was first developed by the AAP in the 1990s in collaboration with other professional organizations, there must be others who were unaware of this resource.
Assuming that this collaborative effort led by the AAP could serve as a standard of care, Dr. Ng evaluated whether PPEs at her own institution were capturing similar information.
In the most recent (5th) edition of the PPE, which was released in 2019 and is available online, medical history is elicited for numerous organ systems relevant to risk. The questions are not directed to any specific sport; the form does not even provide a question about which sports are being considered.
Little Consistency
In evaluating whether PPEs completed at her institution in the previous year elicited similar information, Dr. Ng sought to match 25 elements of patient history from the AAP form to questions posed in the PPEs completed at her institution, some of which had been supplied by school or sports organizations.
Of the 365 PPE forms completed at Dr. Ng’s institution that met study criteria, only 28.6% addressed all 25 elements in the AAP form (range, 0%-78%). Although more than half asked specifically about a history of respiratory symptoms, fewer than half included inquiries about cardiovascular history. There was also little consistency in the capture of information about other relevant medical history.
According to Dr. Ng, these low percentages were observed even when liberally awarding credit. For one example, she said forms that asked any question about syncope with exercise were credited with seeking information about cardiovascular health even though a yes-or-no response might not be helpful.
“We did not distinguish between syncope before or after exercise and this is relevant,” Dr. Ng said. “Syncope during exercise is more likely to be a predictor of sudden cardiac death, whereas syncope after exercise is more likely to be a vasovagal response to exertion.”
Of the 365 PPEs evaluated, about half were completed by pediatricians and half by family medicine clinicians. The average age of the children was about 14 years. Sixty-three percent were male. Only one third of the forms documented the sport for which a pre-participation screen was being submitted.
While almost all states now require PPEs for children considering participation in sports, few specify what information should be elicited, according to Dr. Ng. She further noted that no major study has shown that PPEs have any role in preventing morbidity or mortality related to sports participation.
Does Heterogeneity Negate Worth?
With such diversity across PPEs, evaluating their role is difficult. For example, with such heterogeneity among forms for the information elicited, there is no reasonable approach for testing their sensitivity in predicting medical complications.
Dr. Ng noted that school-created forms were just as likely as forms from other sources to diverge from the AAP-endorsed PPE and ignore organ systems relevant to risk of medical complications. Yet, if the answer is to use the AAP form, Dr. Ng noted that the first sentence on the form reads, “This form should be placed in the athlete’s medical file and should not be shared with schools or sports organizations.”
Although Dr. Ng acknowledged that providing completed PPEs to third parties raises questions about privacy, she questioned how the information should be used by children, parents, and sports organization administrators for discussing risks if not shared.
This concern was seconded in the discussion following Dr. Ng’s presentation.
“You might be signing off on sports participation, but is this for cheerleading or for football?” asked Daniel C. Worthington, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who has a clinical appointment at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. “This makes a huge difference when evaluating if participation is safe.”
He has no issue with completing PPEs for the goal of keeping children safe, but he focused on the inconsistency of how information is collected and distributed.
“The major question is: Does it make any difference?” said Dr. Worthington, referring to the completion of PPEs.
Another participant in the discussion that followed Dr. Ng’s presentation pointed out that the urgent care office in a mall near to his office offers a completed PPE form for a price of $20. In their recommendations, the AAP suggests PPEs be completed by the individual’s primary care physician during a well visit, according to Dr. Ng.
Dr. Ng indicated that PPEs and their purpose deserve a closer look. Based on her data, it is reasonable to assume that the priority for some – whether those requiring or those completing the form — is completing the task rather than meaningful screening of risk.
Dr. Ng and Dr. Worthington report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — There is little consistency in the elements and types of information captured in preparticipation physical evaluations (PPE) for sports among school-aged children, which is complicating efforts to determine if they have value, according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The study concept developed when Tammy Ng, MD, a third-year resident in pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine in Sacramento, was surprised to learn that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had been issuing a standard-of-care PPE for decades.
Dr. Ng had a long-standing interest in pediatric sports medicine and thought that if she was unfamiliar with this form, which was first developed by the AAP in the 1990s in collaboration with other professional organizations, there must be others who were unaware of this resource.
Assuming that this collaborative effort led by the AAP could serve as a standard of care, Dr. Ng evaluated whether PPEs at her own institution were capturing similar information.
In the most recent (5th) edition of the PPE, which was released in 2019 and is available online, medical history is elicited for numerous organ systems relevant to risk. The questions are not directed to any specific sport; the form does not even provide a question about which sports are being considered.
Little Consistency
In evaluating whether PPEs completed at her institution in the previous year elicited similar information, Dr. Ng sought to match 25 elements of patient history from the AAP form to questions posed in the PPEs completed at her institution, some of which had been supplied by school or sports organizations.
Of the 365 PPE forms completed at Dr. Ng’s institution that met study criteria, only 28.6% addressed all 25 elements in the AAP form (range, 0%-78%). Although more than half asked specifically about a history of respiratory symptoms, fewer than half included inquiries about cardiovascular history. There was also little consistency in the capture of information about other relevant medical history.
According to Dr. Ng, these low percentages were observed even when liberally awarding credit. For one example, she said forms that asked any question about syncope with exercise were credited with seeking information about cardiovascular health even though a yes-or-no response might not be helpful.
“We did not distinguish between syncope before or after exercise and this is relevant,” Dr. Ng said. “Syncope during exercise is more likely to be a predictor of sudden cardiac death, whereas syncope after exercise is more likely to be a vasovagal response to exertion.”
Of the 365 PPEs evaluated, about half were completed by pediatricians and half by family medicine clinicians. The average age of the children was about 14 years. Sixty-three percent were male. Only one third of the forms documented the sport for which a pre-participation screen was being submitted.
While almost all states now require PPEs for children considering participation in sports, few specify what information should be elicited, according to Dr. Ng. She further noted that no major study has shown that PPEs have any role in preventing morbidity or mortality related to sports participation.
Does Heterogeneity Negate Worth?
With such diversity across PPEs, evaluating their role is difficult. For example, with such heterogeneity among forms for the information elicited, there is no reasonable approach for testing their sensitivity in predicting medical complications.
Dr. Ng noted that school-created forms were just as likely as forms from other sources to diverge from the AAP-endorsed PPE and ignore organ systems relevant to risk of medical complications. Yet, if the answer is to use the AAP form, Dr. Ng noted that the first sentence on the form reads, “This form should be placed in the athlete’s medical file and should not be shared with schools or sports organizations.”
Although Dr. Ng acknowledged that providing completed PPEs to third parties raises questions about privacy, she questioned how the information should be used by children, parents, and sports organization administrators for discussing risks if not shared.
This concern was seconded in the discussion following Dr. Ng’s presentation.
“You might be signing off on sports participation, but is this for cheerleading or for football?” asked Daniel C. Worthington, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who has a clinical appointment at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. “This makes a huge difference when evaluating if participation is safe.”
He has no issue with completing PPEs for the goal of keeping children safe, but he focused on the inconsistency of how information is collected and distributed.
“The major question is: Does it make any difference?” said Dr. Worthington, referring to the completion of PPEs.
Another participant in the discussion that followed Dr. Ng’s presentation pointed out that the urgent care office in a mall near to his office offers a completed PPE form for a price of $20. In their recommendations, the AAP suggests PPEs be completed by the individual’s primary care physician during a well visit, according to Dr. Ng.
Dr. Ng indicated that PPEs and their purpose deserve a closer look. Based on her data, it is reasonable to assume that the priority for some – whether those requiring or those completing the form — is completing the task rather than meaningful screening of risk.
Dr. Ng and Dr. Worthington report no potential conflicts of interest.
TORONTO — There is little consistency in the elements and types of information captured in preparticipation physical evaluations (PPE) for sports among school-aged children, which is complicating efforts to determine if they have value, according to a study presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The study concept developed when Tammy Ng, MD, a third-year resident in pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine in Sacramento, was surprised to learn that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had been issuing a standard-of-care PPE for decades.
Dr. Ng had a long-standing interest in pediatric sports medicine and thought that if she was unfamiliar with this form, which was first developed by the AAP in the 1990s in collaboration with other professional organizations, there must be others who were unaware of this resource.
Assuming that this collaborative effort led by the AAP could serve as a standard of care, Dr. Ng evaluated whether PPEs at her own institution were capturing similar information.
In the most recent (5th) edition of the PPE, which was released in 2019 and is available online, medical history is elicited for numerous organ systems relevant to risk. The questions are not directed to any specific sport; the form does not even provide a question about which sports are being considered.
Little Consistency
In evaluating whether PPEs completed at her institution in the previous year elicited similar information, Dr. Ng sought to match 25 elements of patient history from the AAP form to questions posed in the PPEs completed at her institution, some of which had been supplied by school or sports organizations.
Of the 365 PPE forms completed at Dr. Ng’s institution that met study criteria, only 28.6% addressed all 25 elements in the AAP form (range, 0%-78%). Although more than half asked specifically about a history of respiratory symptoms, fewer than half included inquiries about cardiovascular history. There was also little consistency in the capture of information about other relevant medical history.
According to Dr. Ng, these low percentages were observed even when liberally awarding credit. For one example, she said forms that asked any question about syncope with exercise were credited with seeking information about cardiovascular health even though a yes-or-no response might not be helpful.
“We did not distinguish between syncope before or after exercise and this is relevant,” Dr. Ng said. “Syncope during exercise is more likely to be a predictor of sudden cardiac death, whereas syncope after exercise is more likely to be a vasovagal response to exertion.”
Of the 365 PPEs evaluated, about half were completed by pediatricians and half by family medicine clinicians. The average age of the children was about 14 years. Sixty-three percent were male. Only one third of the forms documented the sport for which a pre-participation screen was being submitted.
While almost all states now require PPEs for children considering participation in sports, few specify what information should be elicited, according to Dr. Ng. She further noted that no major study has shown that PPEs have any role in preventing morbidity or mortality related to sports participation.
Does Heterogeneity Negate Worth?
With such diversity across PPEs, evaluating their role is difficult. For example, with such heterogeneity among forms for the information elicited, there is no reasonable approach for testing their sensitivity in predicting medical complications.
Dr. Ng noted that school-created forms were just as likely as forms from other sources to diverge from the AAP-endorsed PPE and ignore organ systems relevant to risk of medical complications. Yet, if the answer is to use the AAP form, Dr. Ng noted that the first sentence on the form reads, “This form should be placed in the athlete’s medical file and should not be shared with schools or sports organizations.”
Although Dr. Ng acknowledged that providing completed PPEs to third parties raises questions about privacy, she questioned how the information should be used by children, parents, and sports organization administrators for discussing risks if not shared.
This concern was seconded in the discussion following Dr. Ng’s presentation.
“You might be signing off on sports participation, but is this for cheerleading or for football?” asked Daniel C. Worthington, MD, a pediatrician in private practice who has a clinical appointment at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland. “This makes a huge difference when evaluating if participation is safe.”
He has no issue with completing PPEs for the goal of keeping children safe, but he focused on the inconsistency of how information is collected and distributed.
“The major question is: Does it make any difference?” said Dr. Worthington, referring to the completion of PPEs.
Another participant in the discussion that followed Dr. Ng’s presentation pointed out that the urgent care office in a mall near to his office offers a completed PPE form for a price of $20. In their recommendations, the AAP suggests PPEs be completed by the individual’s primary care physician during a well visit, according to Dr. Ng.
Dr. Ng indicated that PPEs and their purpose deserve a closer look. Based on her data, it is reasonable to assume that the priority for some – whether those requiring or those completing the form — is completing the task rather than meaningful screening of risk.
Dr. Ng and Dr. Worthington report no potential conflicts of interest.
FROM PAS 2024
Discovering the Impact of the Injury Prevention Program on Childhood Safety
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The American Academy of Pediatrics designed TIPP in 1983 to aid pediatricians in preventing unintentional injuries among children. TIPP’s effectiveness in reducing childhood injuries had not been formally evaluated in a randomized trial prior to this study.
- TIPP implementation included developmentally based safety counseling and distribution of age-appropriate safety materials to parents.
- A total of 781 parent-infant dyads participated, with the study population primarily consisting of low-income, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black families.
- Parent-reported injuries were tracked at each well-child check from 2 to 24 months, with the study adjusting for baseline child, parent, and household factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- TIPP led to a significant reduction in reported childhood injuries over 2 years with adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 (0.66-0.91), 0.60 (0.44-0.82), 0.32 (0.16-0.62), 0.26 (0.12-0.53), and 0.27 (0.14-0.52) at 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively.
- The study highlights the need for further research to explore TIPP’s impact on serious injuries and to identify optimal implementation strategies in busy clinical settings.
- IN PRACTICE:
“This program includes a developmentally based safety counseling schedule that guides what materials (safety sheets and an age-appropriate Framingham safety survey) to ask about risk behaviors. For the age group relevant here, there are pediatric patient handouts for parents of children who are aged 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 1 to 2 years, and they review safety for falls, motor vehicles, firearms, drowning, poisoning, choking, and burns”, wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eliana M. Perrin, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University Schools of Medicine and Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. It was published online in Pediatrics.
LIMITATIONS:
Further research is necessary to assess TIPP’s effect on serious injuries and to determine effective implementation strategies in various clinical settings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Development, with supplemental funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The American Academy of Pediatrics designed TIPP in 1983 to aid pediatricians in preventing unintentional injuries among children. TIPP’s effectiveness in reducing childhood injuries had not been formally evaluated in a randomized trial prior to this study.
- TIPP implementation included developmentally based safety counseling and distribution of age-appropriate safety materials to parents.
- A total of 781 parent-infant dyads participated, with the study population primarily consisting of low-income, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black families.
- Parent-reported injuries were tracked at each well-child check from 2 to 24 months, with the study adjusting for baseline child, parent, and household factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- TIPP led to a significant reduction in reported childhood injuries over 2 years with adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 (0.66-0.91), 0.60 (0.44-0.82), 0.32 (0.16-0.62), 0.26 (0.12-0.53), and 0.27 (0.14-0.52) at 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively.
- The study highlights the need for further research to explore TIPP’s impact on serious injuries and to identify optimal implementation strategies in busy clinical settings.
- IN PRACTICE:
“This program includes a developmentally based safety counseling schedule that guides what materials (safety sheets and an age-appropriate Framingham safety survey) to ask about risk behaviors. For the age group relevant here, there are pediatric patient handouts for parents of children who are aged 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 1 to 2 years, and they review safety for falls, motor vehicles, firearms, drowning, poisoning, choking, and burns”, wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eliana M. Perrin, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University Schools of Medicine and Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. It was published online in Pediatrics.
LIMITATIONS:
Further research is necessary to assess TIPP’s effect on serious injuries and to determine effective implementation strategies in various clinical settings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Development, with supplemental funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- The American Academy of Pediatrics designed TIPP in 1983 to aid pediatricians in preventing unintentional injuries among children. TIPP’s effectiveness in reducing childhood injuries had not been formally evaluated in a randomized trial prior to this study.
- TIPP implementation included developmentally based safety counseling and distribution of age-appropriate safety materials to parents.
- A total of 781 parent-infant dyads participated, with the study population primarily consisting of low-income, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic Black families.
- Parent-reported injuries were tracked at each well-child check from 2 to 24 months, with the study adjusting for baseline child, parent, and household factors.
TAKEAWAY:
- TIPP led to a significant reduction in reported childhood injuries over 2 years with adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 (0.66-0.91), 0.60 (0.44-0.82), 0.32 (0.16-0.62), 0.26 (0.12-0.53), and 0.27 (0.14-0.52) at 4, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, respectively.
- The study highlights the need for further research to explore TIPP’s impact on serious injuries and to identify optimal implementation strategies in busy clinical settings.
- IN PRACTICE:
“This program includes a developmentally based safety counseling schedule that guides what materials (safety sheets and an age-appropriate Framingham safety survey) to ask about risk behaviors. For the age group relevant here, there are pediatric patient handouts for parents of children who are aged 0 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and 1 to 2 years, and they review safety for falls, motor vehicles, firearms, drowning, poisoning, choking, and burns”, wrote the authors of the study.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Eliana M. Perrin, MD, MPH, Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University Schools of Medicine and Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. It was published online in Pediatrics.
LIMITATIONS:
Further research is necessary to assess TIPP’s effect on serious injuries and to determine effective implementation strategies in various clinical settings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver Institute of Child Health and Development, with supplemental funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
USPSTF: Insufficient Evidence for Primary Care Interventions to Prevent Child Maltreatment
While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.
This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.
The review included 14,355 participants in 25 trials, of which 23 included home visits. It measured such things as direct reports to Child Protective Services or removal of children from the home and proxy measures of abuse or neglect such as injury, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. In addition, it looked at behavioral, developmental, emotional, mental or physical health and well-being, mortality, and harms.
More than 50% of the studies analyzed consisted of children with no prior reports of maltreatment. In addition to limited and inconsistent findings, the researchers noted wide variance in screening, identifying, and reporting child maltreatment to authorities, including variations by race or ethnicity, as well as wide variance in the accuracy of screening instruments.
“Contextual evidence pointed to the potential for bias or inaccuracy in screening, identification, and reporting of child maltreatment but also highlighted the importance of addressing social determinants when intervening to prevent child maltreatment,” Dr. Viswanathan’s group wrote.
The USPSTF panel, chaired by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (now immediate past chair of the Task Force), stressed that the current statement applies only to children with no signs of maltreatment: Those with direct signs should be assessed and appropriately reported.
A Common and Costly Problem
Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.
Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.
“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.
In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.
They sent a heartfelt message to primary care doctors: “Know this: while additional evidence is amassed, do not stop your ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable children. You are an important component of child maltreatment prevention, although your actions and support cannot be delivered (or measured) in isolation.”
Dr. Schilling and associates argued that insufficient evidence does not mean that primary care prevention efforts are ineffective, only that evidence is lacking. They pointed out that proximal outcomes along a causal pathway have been used to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures and should be considered in this context. “For example, based on evidence that counseling about minimizing exposure to UV radiation is associated with a moderate increase in use of sunscreen protection, the USPSTF recommends that counseling be provided to certain populations,” they wrote. “The USPSTF did not require direct evidence that counseling decreases skin cancer.”
More high-quality research is needed, as the USPSTF recognized. “Given the inadequacy of the current gold standard measures of child maltreatment, proximal outcomes on the complex, multifactorial, causal pathway to child abuse and neglect should be considered,” the commentators wrote.
The commentators also acknowledged that patients’ caregivers often struggle to do their best with sparse resources and that resources such as food and housing, treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, appropriate strategies to manage typical child behavior, and affordable child care too often fall short.
They argued, therefore, that consequential prevention is not possible without sustained investment in policies and programs that provide tangible support to families, reduce childhood poverty, and target relevant risk factors.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the US Department of Health and Human Services supports the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Barry reported grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Silverstein reported receiving a research grant on approaches to child maltreatment prevention. Dr. Lee reported grants from the National Institute on Aging. The evidence review was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research. Dr. Viswanathan and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wood reported grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Christian reported personal fees from multiple government agencies and legal firms and provides medical-legal expert work in child abuse cases outside of the submitted work.
While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.
This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.
The review included 14,355 participants in 25 trials, of which 23 included home visits. It measured such things as direct reports to Child Protective Services or removal of children from the home and proxy measures of abuse or neglect such as injury, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. In addition, it looked at behavioral, developmental, emotional, mental or physical health and well-being, mortality, and harms.
More than 50% of the studies analyzed consisted of children with no prior reports of maltreatment. In addition to limited and inconsistent findings, the researchers noted wide variance in screening, identifying, and reporting child maltreatment to authorities, including variations by race or ethnicity, as well as wide variance in the accuracy of screening instruments.
“Contextual evidence pointed to the potential for bias or inaccuracy in screening, identification, and reporting of child maltreatment but also highlighted the importance of addressing social determinants when intervening to prevent child maltreatment,” Dr. Viswanathan’s group wrote.
The USPSTF panel, chaired by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (now immediate past chair of the Task Force), stressed that the current statement applies only to children with no signs of maltreatment: Those with direct signs should be assessed and appropriately reported.
A Common and Costly Problem
Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.
Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.
“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.
In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.
They sent a heartfelt message to primary care doctors: “Know this: while additional evidence is amassed, do not stop your ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable children. You are an important component of child maltreatment prevention, although your actions and support cannot be delivered (or measured) in isolation.”
Dr. Schilling and associates argued that insufficient evidence does not mean that primary care prevention efforts are ineffective, only that evidence is lacking. They pointed out that proximal outcomes along a causal pathway have been used to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures and should be considered in this context. “For example, based on evidence that counseling about minimizing exposure to UV radiation is associated with a moderate increase in use of sunscreen protection, the USPSTF recommends that counseling be provided to certain populations,” they wrote. “The USPSTF did not require direct evidence that counseling decreases skin cancer.”
More high-quality research is needed, as the USPSTF recognized. “Given the inadequacy of the current gold standard measures of child maltreatment, proximal outcomes on the complex, multifactorial, causal pathway to child abuse and neglect should be considered,” the commentators wrote.
The commentators also acknowledged that patients’ caregivers often struggle to do their best with sparse resources and that resources such as food and housing, treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, appropriate strategies to manage typical child behavior, and affordable child care too often fall short.
They argued, therefore, that consequential prevention is not possible without sustained investment in policies and programs that provide tangible support to families, reduce childhood poverty, and target relevant risk factors.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the US Department of Health and Human Services supports the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Barry reported grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Silverstein reported receiving a research grant on approaches to child maltreatment prevention. Dr. Lee reported grants from the National Institute on Aging. The evidence review was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research. Dr. Viswanathan and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wood reported grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Christian reported personal fees from multiple government agencies and legal firms and provides medical-legal expert work in child abuse cases outside of the submitted work.
While primary care physicians are uniquely positioned to identify mistreated minors, there is insufficient evidence of benefits and harms to support primary care interventions to prevent maltreatment in children who have no indicative signs or symptoms. That is the conclusion of the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in an update of its 2018 statement published in JAMA Network Open.
This gap, however, might be partially filled by addressing in young patients the known social determinants of health such as economic stability, food, shelter, and healthcare access. The USPSTF statement is based on a simultaneously published evidence review and synthesis compiled by Meera Viswanathan, PhD, of the RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-Based Practice Center in Triangle Park, NC, and colleagues.
The review included 14,355 participants in 25 trials, of which 23 included home visits. It measured such things as direct reports to Child Protective Services or removal of children from the home and proxy measures of abuse or neglect such as injury, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. In addition, it looked at behavioral, developmental, emotional, mental or physical health and well-being, mortality, and harms.
More than 50% of the studies analyzed consisted of children with no prior reports of maltreatment. In addition to limited and inconsistent findings, the researchers noted wide variance in screening, identifying, and reporting child maltreatment to authorities, including variations by race or ethnicity, as well as wide variance in the accuracy of screening instruments.
“Contextual evidence pointed to the potential for bias or inaccuracy in screening, identification, and reporting of child maltreatment but also highlighted the importance of addressing social determinants when intervening to prevent child maltreatment,” Dr. Viswanathan’s group wrote.
The USPSTF panel, chaired by Michael J. Barry, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (now immediate past chair of the Task Force), stressed that the current statement applies only to children with no signs of maltreatment: Those with direct signs should be assessed and appropriately reported.
A Common and Costly Problem
Child abuse or neglect is widespread and has long-lasting adverse effects. In 2021, the statement noted, Child Protective Services identified 600,000 children as abused or neglected, with 1821 related deaths. Most (76%) experienced neglect, but many were subjected to physical abuse (16%), sexual abuse (10%), and sex trafficking (0.2%). Of the 1820 who died, 78% experienced neglect and 43% experienced physical abuse alone or combined with maltreatment such as neglect and psychological abuse.
Benefits aside, among the potential harms of intervention, the USPSTF noted, is family stigma and bias toward non-White and low-income groups. There may be a greater probability of clinicians’ disproportionately reporting abuse for the children of Black, Hispanic, indigenous, and one-parent households. Some studies indicate that more cases of maltreatment are missed in White children, the review authors noted.
“Additional evidence is needed to clarify potential linkages between improvements in social determinants of health and child maltreatment prevention,” the USPSTF panelists concluded. They acknowledged that their recommendation does not address the effectiveness of interventions such as home visits to improve family well-being.
In an accompanying editorial Samantha Schilling, MD, MSHP, of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania admitted they were “disheartened, but not surprised” at the USPSTF’s conclusions and urged that prevention measures be continued. “It is not yet time to wave the white flag of surrender and abandon primary care–based efforts to mitigate risks for child abuse and neglect.
They sent a heartfelt message to primary care doctors: “Know this: while additional evidence is amassed, do not stop your ongoing efforts to protect vulnerable children. You are an important component of child maltreatment prevention, although your actions and support cannot be delivered (or measured) in isolation.”
Dr. Schilling and associates argued that insufficient evidence does not mean that primary care prevention efforts are ineffective, only that evidence is lacking. They pointed out that proximal outcomes along a causal pathway have been used to assess the effectiveness of preventive measures and should be considered in this context. “For example, based on evidence that counseling about minimizing exposure to UV radiation is associated with a moderate increase in use of sunscreen protection, the USPSTF recommends that counseling be provided to certain populations,” they wrote. “The USPSTF did not require direct evidence that counseling decreases skin cancer.”
More high-quality research is needed, as the USPSTF recognized. “Given the inadequacy of the current gold standard measures of child maltreatment, proximal outcomes on the complex, multifactorial, causal pathway to child abuse and neglect should be considered,” the commentators wrote.
The commentators also acknowledged that patients’ caregivers often struggle to do their best with sparse resources and that resources such as food and housing, treatment for substance use and mental health disorders, appropriate strategies to manage typical child behavior, and affordable child care too often fall short.
They argued, therefore, that consequential prevention is not possible without sustained investment in policies and programs that provide tangible support to families, reduce childhood poverty, and target relevant risk factors.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality of the US Department of Health and Human Services supports the operations of the USPSTF. Dr. Barry reported grants from Healthwise, a nonprofit organization, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Silverstein reported receiving a research grant on approaches to child maltreatment prevention. Dr. Lee reported grants from the National Institute on Aging. The evidence review was supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research. Dr. Viswanathan and colleagues disclosed no conflicts of interest. Dr. Wood reported grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation outside of the submitted work. Dr. Christian reported personal fees from multiple government agencies and legal firms and provides medical-legal expert work in child abuse cases outside of the submitted work.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Fatal and nonfatal injuries
I suspect that, like me, you were saddened, but maybe not shocked, to learn that firearm-related fatalities have recently surpassed motor vehicle–related fatalities as the leading cause of death among children. For those of us living in Maine, this revelation came at a particularly difficult time. The body of the presumed shooter in the Lewiston massacre was found less than 10 miles from where I am writing you this letter. There is a good chance he may have been a former patient of mine, but I no longer have access to my records to confirm that.
This reshuffling at the top of the list of mortality causes is just one example of the shifting trends that have occurred in pediatric fatality statistics. In a recent analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics published in Pediatrics investigators discovered that while, in general, fatal injuries have increased over the study period (2011-2021) nonfatal injuries have decreased.
We should no longer be surprised to learn that firearm-related deaths increased more than 87%. Fatal drug poisoning was up 133% and suffocation-related deaths increased 12.5% over that 10-year period. Given this profile of fatalities, it shouldn’t surprise us that nonfatal injuries due to firearms, poisoning, and self-harm also increased.
However, nonfatal injuries in other broad categories decreased: falls were down 52.8%, overexertion 63%, struck by [something or someone] 47.3%, motor vehicle occupant 36.7%, and cut pierce 36.7%. Nonfatal drownings were unchanged.
Diverging trends
What are we to make of these diverging trends? I suspect that when it comes to both firearms and drug poisonings, both fatal and nonfatal, children are now living in an environment in which the sheer volume of guns and drugs have grown the point, and will continue to grow, that contact and its consequences will continue to increase until we reach a saturation point at some unpredictable point in the future. There still may be some opportunities to curb the flow of drugs. But, I am afraid when it comes to firearms, that ship has sailed. We may have a chance to curb assault weapons, but hand guns have become ubiquitous to the point that they will continue to be a threat to children.
The increase in self-harm injuries is clearly a reflection of the increase in pediatric and adolescent mental health disturbances, which in turn is a reflection of the gloom hanging over the population in general.
But, what’s going on with the decrease in nonfatal injuries caused by falls, overexertion, struck by, and cut pierce? Is this a bit of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy picture? The authors of the paper see it as a reflection of our “public health interventions targeting pediatric safety partnered with technological advancement and legislative requirements.” Maybe when we are talking about booster seats and other automotive safety advancements. But I’m not so sure we should be too vigorous as we pat ourselves on the back.
On the other hand, aren’t these decreases in injuries related to activity just more evidence of our increasingly sedentary pediatric population? Falling off the couch seldom creates an injury that generates an ED statistic. Myopia and obesity related to excess screen time doesn’t trigger data points in this study. Overexertion injuries are down. We already know the consequences of underexertion are up.
I’m not sure we need to cut back on our efforts at injury prevention but I worry that we may run the risk of discouraging healthy activity if we aren’t careful with our voices of caution.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I suspect that, like me, you were saddened, but maybe not shocked, to learn that firearm-related fatalities have recently surpassed motor vehicle–related fatalities as the leading cause of death among children. For those of us living in Maine, this revelation came at a particularly difficult time. The body of the presumed shooter in the Lewiston massacre was found less than 10 miles from where I am writing you this letter. There is a good chance he may have been a former patient of mine, but I no longer have access to my records to confirm that.
This reshuffling at the top of the list of mortality causes is just one example of the shifting trends that have occurred in pediatric fatality statistics. In a recent analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics published in Pediatrics investigators discovered that while, in general, fatal injuries have increased over the study period (2011-2021) nonfatal injuries have decreased.
We should no longer be surprised to learn that firearm-related deaths increased more than 87%. Fatal drug poisoning was up 133% and suffocation-related deaths increased 12.5% over that 10-year period. Given this profile of fatalities, it shouldn’t surprise us that nonfatal injuries due to firearms, poisoning, and self-harm also increased.
However, nonfatal injuries in other broad categories decreased: falls were down 52.8%, overexertion 63%, struck by [something or someone] 47.3%, motor vehicle occupant 36.7%, and cut pierce 36.7%. Nonfatal drownings were unchanged.
Diverging trends
What are we to make of these diverging trends? I suspect that when it comes to both firearms and drug poisonings, both fatal and nonfatal, children are now living in an environment in which the sheer volume of guns and drugs have grown the point, and will continue to grow, that contact and its consequences will continue to increase until we reach a saturation point at some unpredictable point in the future. There still may be some opportunities to curb the flow of drugs. But, I am afraid when it comes to firearms, that ship has sailed. We may have a chance to curb assault weapons, but hand guns have become ubiquitous to the point that they will continue to be a threat to children.
The increase in self-harm injuries is clearly a reflection of the increase in pediatric and adolescent mental health disturbances, which in turn is a reflection of the gloom hanging over the population in general.
But, what’s going on with the decrease in nonfatal injuries caused by falls, overexertion, struck by, and cut pierce? Is this a bit of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy picture? The authors of the paper see it as a reflection of our “public health interventions targeting pediatric safety partnered with technological advancement and legislative requirements.” Maybe when we are talking about booster seats and other automotive safety advancements. But I’m not so sure we should be too vigorous as we pat ourselves on the back.
On the other hand, aren’t these decreases in injuries related to activity just more evidence of our increasingly sedentary pediatric population? Falling off the couch seldom creates an injury that generates an ED statistic. Myopia and obesity related to excess screen time doesn’t trigger data points in this study. Overexertion injuries are down. We already know the consequences of underexertion are up.
I’m not sure we need to cut back on our efforts at injury prevention but I worry that we may run the risk of discouraging healthy activity if we aren’t careful with our voices of caution.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
I suspect that, like me, you were saddened, but maybe not shocked, to learn that firearm-related fatalities have recently surpassed motor vehicle–related fatalities as the leading cause of death among children. For those of us living in Maine, this revelation came at a particularly difficult time. The body of the presumed shooter in the Lewiston massacre was found less than 10 miles from where I am writing you this letter. There is a good chance he may have been a former patient of mine, but I no longer have access to my records to confirm that.
This reshuffling at the top of the list of mortality causes is just one example of the shifting trends that have occurred in pediatric fatality statistics. In a recent analysis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics published in Pediatrics investigators discovered that while, in general, fatal injuries have increased over the study period (2011-2021) nonfatal injuries have decreased.
We should no longer be surprised to learn that firearm-related deaths increased more than 87%. Fatal drug poisoning was up 133% and suffocation-related deaths increased 12.5% over that 10-year period. Given this profile of fatalities, it shouldn’t surprise us that nonfatal injuries due to firearms, poisoning, and self-harm also increased.
However, nonfatal injuries in other broad categories decreased: falls were down 52.8%, overexertion 63%, struck by [something or someone] 47.3%, motor vehicle occupant 36.7%, and cut pierce 36.7%. Nonfatal drownings were unchanged.
Diverging trends
What are we to make of these diverging trends? I suspect that when it comes to both firearms and drug poisonings, both fatal and nonfatal, children are now living in an environment in which the sheer volume of guns and drugs have grown the point, and will continue to grow, that contact and its consequences will continue to increase until we reach a saturation point at some unpredictable point in the future. There still may be some opportunities to curb the flow of drugs. But, I am afraid when it comes to firearms, that ship has sailed. We may have a chance to curb assault weapons, but hand guns have become ubiquitous to the point that they will continue to be a threat to children.
The increase in self-harm injuries is clearly a reflection of the increase in pediatric and adolescent mental health disturbances, which in turn is a reflection of the gloom hanging over the population in general.
But, what’s going on with the decrease in nonfatal injuries caused by falls, overexertion, struck by, and cut pierce? Is this a bit of sunshine in an otherwise cloudy picture? The authors of the paper see it as a reflection of our “public health interventions targeting pediatric safety partnered with technological advancement and legislative requirements.” Maybe when we are talking about booster seats and other automotive safety advancements. But I’m not so sure we should be too vigorous as we pat ourselves on the back.
On the other hand, aren’t these decreases in injuries related to activity just more evidence of our increasingly sedentary pediatric population? Falling off the couch seldom creates an injury that generates an ED statistic. Myopia and obesity related to excess screen time doesn’t trigger data points in this study. Overexertion injuries are down. We already know the consequences of underexertion are up.
I’m not sure we need to cut back on our efforts at injury prevention but I worry that we may run the risk of discouraging healthy activity if we aren’t careful with our voices of caution.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Diagnosing pediatric forearm fractures: Radiograph or ultrasound?
TOPLINE:
as well as their waiting time in ED.
METHODOLOGY:
- After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
- The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
- The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
- The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
- The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
- Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
- Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
- No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.
IN PRACTICE:
Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”
He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
SOURCE:
Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
as well as their waiting time in ED.
METHODOLOGY:
- After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
- The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
- The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
- The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
- The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
- Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
- Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
- No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.
IN PRACTICE:
Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”
He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
SOURCE:
Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
as well as their waiting time in ED.
METHODOLOGY:
- After the World Health Organization reported a lack of access to any diagnostic imaging in approximately two-thirds of the world population in 2010, ultrasonography has gained popularity in low- and middle-income countries.
- The initial use of ultrasonography is in accordance with the principle of maintaining radiation levels as low as reasonably achievable.
- The BUCKLED trial was conducted, including 270 pediatric patients (age, 5-15 years) who presented to the ED with isolated, acute, clinically nondeformed distal forearm fractures.
- The participants were randomly assigned to receive initial point-of-care ultrasonography (n = 135) or radiography (n = 135) in the ED.
- The primary outcome was the physical function of the affected arm at 4 weeks evaluated using the Pediatric Upper Extremity Short Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) tool.
TAKEAWAY:
- At 4 weeks, mean PROMIS scores were 36.4 and 36.3 points in ultrasonography and radiography groups, respectively (mean difference, 0.1 point; 95% confidence interval, − 1.3 to 1.4), indicating noninferiority of ultrasonography over radiography.
- Ultrasonography and radiography groups showed similar efficacy in terms of PROMIS scores at 1 week (MD, 0.7 points; 95% CI, − 1.4 to 2.8) and 8 weeks (MD, 0.1 points; 95% CI, − 0.5 to 0.7).
- Participants in the ultrasonography group had a shorter length of stay in the ED (median difference, 15 minutes; 95% CI, 1-29) and a shorter treatment time (median difference, 28 minutes; 95% CI, 17-40) than those in the radiography group.
- No important fractures were missed with ultrasonography, and no significant difference was observed in the frequency of adverse events or unplanned returns to the ED between the two groups.
IN PRACTICE:
Noting the benefit-risk profile of an ultrasound-first approach in an ED setting, the lead author, Peter J. Snelling, MB, BS, MPH&TM, from Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Australia, said: “It is highly unlikely that any important fractures would be missed using the protocol that we trained clinicians. The risk is low and the benefit is moderate, such as reducing length of stay and increased level of patient satisfaction.”
He further added that, “with an ultrasound-first approach, clinicians can scan the patient at time of review and may even be able to discharge them immediately (two-thirds of instances in our NEJM trial). This places the patient at the center of care being provided.”
SOURCE:
Authors from the BUCKLED Trial Group published their study in the New England Journal of Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
PROMIS scores may have been affected by variations in subsequent therapeutic interventions rather than the initial diagnostic method. PROMIS tool was not validated in children younger than 5 years of age.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by the Emergency Medicine Foundation and others. The authors have declared no relevant interests to disclose.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
IQ and concussion recovery
Pediatric concussion is one of those rare phenomena in which we may be witnessing its emergence and clarification in a generation. When I was serving as the game doctor for our local high school football team in the 1970s, I and many other physicians had a very simplistic view of concussion. If the patient never lost conscious and had a reasonably intact short-term memory, we didn’t seriously entertain concussion as a diagnosis. “What’s the score and who is the president?” Were my favorite screening questions.
Obviously, we were underdiagnosing and mismanaging concussion. In part thanks to some high-profile athletes who suffered multiple concussions and eventually chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) physicians began to realize that they should be looking more closely at children who sustained a head injury. The diagnostic criteria were expanded to include any injury that even temporarily effected brain function.
With the new appreciation for the risk of multiple concussions, the focus broadened to include the question of when is it safe for the athlete to return to competition. What signs or symptoms can the patient offer us so we can be sure his or her brain is sufficiently recovered? Here we stepped off into a deep abyss of ignorance. Fortunately, it became obvious fairly quickly that imaging studies weren’t going to help us, as they were invariably normal or at least didn’t tell us anything that wasn’t obvious on a physical exam.
If the patient had a headache, complained of dizziness, or manifested amnesia, monitoring the patient was fairly straightforward. But, in the absence of symptoms and no obvious way to determine the pace of recovery of an organ we couldn’t visualize, clinicians were pulling criteria and time tables out of thin air. Guessing that the concussed brain was in some ways like a torn muscle or overstretched tendon, “brain rest” was often suggested. So no TV, no reading, and certainly none of the cerebral challenging activity of school. Fortunately, we don’t hear much about the notion of brain rest anymore and there is at least one study that suggests that patients kept home from school recover more slowly.
But . Sometimes they describe headache or dizziness but often they complain of a vague mental unwellness. “Brain fog,” a term that has emerged in the wake of the COVID pandemic, might be an apt descriptor. Management of these slow recoverers has been a challenge.
However, two recent articles in the journal Pediatrics may provide some clarity and offer guidance in their management. In a study coming from the psychology department at Georgia State University, researchers reported that they have been able to find “no evidence of clinical meaningful differences in IQ after pediatric concussion.” In their words there is “strong evidence against reduced intelligence in the first few weeks to month after pediatric concussion.”
While their findings may simply toss the IQ onto the pile of worthless measures of healing, a companion commentary by Talin Babikian, PhD, a psychologist at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, provides a more nuanced interpretation. He writes that if we are looking for an explanation when a patient’s recovery is taking longer than we might expect we need to look beyond some structural damage. Maybe the patient has a previously undiagnosed premorbid condition effecting his or her intellectual, cognitive, or learning abilities. Could the stall in improvement be the result of other symptoms? Here fatigue and sleep deprivation may be the culprits. Could some underlying emotional factor such as anxiety or depression be the problem? For example, I have seen patients whose fear of re-injury has prevented their return to full function. And, finally, the patient may be avoiding a “nonpreferred or challenging situation” unrelated to the injury.
In other words, the concussion may simply be the most obvious rip in a fabric that was already frayed and under stress. This kind of broad holistic (a word I usually like to avoid) thinking may be what is lacking as we struggle to understand other mysterious and chronic conditions such as Lyme disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.
While these two papers help provide some clarity in the management of pediatric concussion, what they fail to address is the bigger question of the relationship between head injury and CTE. The answers to that conundrum are enshrouded in a mix of politics and publicity that I doubt will clear in the near future.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Pediatric concussion is one of those rare phenomena in which we may be witnessing its emergence and clarification in a generation. When I was serving as the game doctor for our local high school football team in the 1970s, I and many other physicians had a very simplistic view of concussion. If the patient never lost conscious and had a reasonably intact short-term memory, we didn’t seriously entertain concussion as a diagnosis. “What’s the score and who is the president?” Were my favorite screening questions.
Obviously, we were underdiagnosing and mismanaging concussion. In part thanks to some high-profile athletes who suffered multiple concussions and eventually chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) physicians began to realize that they should be looking more closely at children who sustained a head injury. The diagnostic criteria were expanded to include any injury that even temporarily effected brain function.
With the new appreciation for the risk of multiple concussions, the focus broadened to include the question of when is it safe for the athlete to return to competition. What signs or symptoms can the patient offer us so we can be sure his or her brain is sufficiently recovered? Here we stepped off into a deep abyss of ignorance. Fortunately, it became obvious fairly quickly that imaging studies weren’t going to help us, as they were invariably normal or at least didn’t tell us anything that wasn’t obvious on a physical exam.
If the patient had a headache, complained of dizziness, or manifested amnesia, monitoring the patient was fairly straightforward. But, in the absence of symptoms and no obvious way to determine the pace of recovery of an organ we couldn’t visualize, clinicians were pulling criteria and time tables out of thin air. Guessing that the concussed brain was in some ways like a torn muscle or overstretched tendon, “brain rest” was often suggested. So no TV, no reading, and certainly none of the cerebral challenging activity of school. Fortunately, we don’t hear much about the notion of brain rest anymore and there is at least one study that suggests that patients kept home from school recover more slowly.
But . Sometimes they describe headache or dizziness but often they complain of a vague mental unwellness. “Brain fog,” a term that has emerged in the wake of the COVID pandemic, might be an apt descriptor. Management of these slow recoverers has been a challenge.
However, two recent articles in the journal Pediatrics may provide some clarity and offer guidance in their management. In a study coming from the psychology department at Georgia State University, researchers reported that they have been able to find “no evidence of clinical meaningful differences in IQ after pediatric concussion.” In their words there is “strong evidence against reduced intelligence in the first few weeks to month after pediatric concussion.”
While their findings may simply toss the IQ onto the pile of worthless measures of healing, a companion commentary by Talin Babikian, PhD, a psychologist at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, provides a more nuanced interpretation. He writes that if we are looking for an explanation when a patient’s recovery is taking longer than we might expect we need to look beyond some structural damage. Maybe the patient has a previously undiagnosed premorbid condition effecting his or her intellectual, cognitive, or learning abilities. Could the stall in improvement be the result of other symptoms? Here fatigue and sleep deprivation may be the culprits. Could some underlying emotional factor such as anxiety or depression be the problem? For example, I have seen patients whose fear of re-injury has prevented their return to full function. And, finally, the patient may be avoiding a “nonpreferred or challenging situation” unrelated to the injury.
In other words, the concussion may simply be the most obvious rip in a fabric that was already frayed and under stress. This kind of broad holistic (a word I usually like to avoid) thinking may be what is lacking as we struggle to understand other mysterious and chronic conditions such as Lyme disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.
While these two papers help provide some clarity in the management of pediatric concussion, what they fail to address is the bigger question of the relationship between head injury and CTE. The answers to that conundrum are enshrouded in a mix of politics and publicity that I doubt will clear in the near future.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
Pediatric concussion is one of those rare phenomena in which we may be witnessing its emergence and clarification in a generation. When I was serving as the game doctor for our local high school football team in the 1970s, I and many other physicians had a very simplistic view of concussion. If the patient never lost conscious and had a reasonably intact short-term memory, we didn’t seriously entertain concussion as a diagnosis. “What’s the score and who is the president?” Were my favorite screening questions.
Obviously, we were underdiagnosing and mismanaging concussion. In part thanks to some high-profile athletes who suffered multiple concussions and eventually chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) physicians began to realize that they should be looking more closely at children who sustained a head injury. The diagnostic criteria were expanded to include any injury that even temporarily effected brain function.
With the new appreciation for the risk of multiple concussions, the focus broadened to include the question of when is it safe for the athlete to return to competition. What signs or symptoms can the patient offer us so we can be sure his or her brain is sufficiently recovered? Here we stepped off into a deep abyss of ignorance. Fortunately, it became obvious fairly quickly that imaging studies weren’t going to help us, as they were invariably normal or at least didn’t tell us anything that wasn’t obvious on a physical exam.
If the patient had a headache, complained of dizziness, or manifested amnesia, monitoring the patient was fairly straightforward. But, in the absence of symptoms and no obvious way to determine the pace of recovery of an organ we couldn’t visualize, clinicians were pulling criteria and time tables out of thin air. Guessing that the concussed brain was in some ways like a torn muscle or overstretched tendon, “brain rest” was often suggested. So no TV, no reading, and certainly none of the cerebral challenging activity of school. Fortunately, we don’t hear much about the notion of brain rest anymore and there is at least one study that suggests that patients kept home from school recover more slowly.
But . Sometimes they describe headache or dizziness but often they complain of a vague mental unwellness. “Brain fog,” a term that has emerged in the wake of the COVID pandemic, might be an apt descriptor. Management of these slow recoverers has been a challenge.
However, two recent articles in the journal Pediatrics may provide some clarity and offer guidance in their management. In a study coming from the psychology department at Georgia State University, researchers reported that they have been able to find “no evidence of clinical meaningful differences in IQ after pediatric concussion.” In their words there is “strong evidence against reduced intelligence in the first few weeks to month after pediatric concussion.”
While their findings may simply toss the IQ onto the pile of worthless measures of healing, a companion commentary by Talin Babikian, PhD, a psychologist at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA, provides a more nuanced interpretation. He writes that if we are looking for an explanation when a patient’s recovery is taking longer than we might expect we need to look beyond some structural damage. Maybe the patient has a previously undiagnosed premorbid condition effecting his or her intellectual, cognitive, or learning abilities. Could the stall in improvement be the result of other symptoms? Here fatigue and sleep deprivation may be the culprits. Could some underlying emotional factor such as anxiety or depression be the problem? For example, I have seen patients whose fear of re-injury has prevented their return to full function. And, finally, the patient may be avoiding a “nonpreferred or challenging situation” unrelated to the injury.
In other words, the concussion may simply be the most obvious rip in a fabric that was already frayed and under stress. This kind of broad holistic (a word I usually like to avoid) thinking may be what is lacking as we struggle to understand other mysterious and chronic conditions such as Lyme disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.
While these two papers help provide some clarity in the management of pediatric concussion, what they fail to address is the bigger question of the relationship between head injury and CTE. The answers to that conundrum are enshrouded in a mix of politics and publicity that I doubt will clear in the near future.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.
‘Decapitated’ boy saved by surgery team
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.
Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.
Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?
Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.
Dr. Wilson: “Injury to the cervical spine” might be something of an understatement. He had what’s called atlanto-occipital dislocation, colloquially often referred to as internal decapitation. Can you tell us what that means? It sounds terrifying.
Dr. Einav: It’s an injury to the ligaments between the occiput and the upper cervical spine, with or without bony fracture. The atlanto-occipital joint is formed by the superior articular facet of the atlas and the occipital condyle, stabilized by an articular capsule between the head and neck, and is supported by various ligaments around it that stabilize the joint and allow joint movements, including flexion, extension, and some rotation in the lower levels.
Dr. Wilson: This joint has several degrees of freedom, which means it needs a lot of support. With this type of injury, where essentially you have severing of the ligaments, is it usually survivable? How dangerous is this?
Dr. Einav: The mortality rate is 50%-60%, depending on the primary impact, the injury, transportation later on, and then the surgery and surgical management.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us a bit about this patient’s status when he came to your medical center. I assume he was in bad shape.
Dr. Einav: Hassan arrived at our medical center with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. He was fully conscious. He was hemodynamically stable except for a bad laceration on his abdomen. He had a Philadelphia collar around his neck. He was transported by chopper because the paramedics suspected that he had a cervical spine injury and decided to bring him to a Level 1 trauma center.
He was monitored and we treated him according to the ATLS [advanced trauma life support] protocol. He didn’t have any gross sensory deficits, but he was a little confused about the whole situation and the accident. Therefore, we could do a general examination but we couldn’t rely on that regarding any sensory deficit that he may or may not have. We decided as a team that it would be better to slow down and control the situation. We decided not to operate on him immediately. We basically stabilized him and made sure that he didn’t have any traumatic internal organ damage. Later on we took him to the OR and performed surgery.
Dr. Wilson: It’s amazing that he had intact motor function, considering the extent of his injury. The spinal cord was spared somewhat during the injury. There must have been a moment when you realized that this kid, who was conscious and could move all four extremities, had a very severe neck injury. Was that due to a CT scan or physical exam? And what was your feeling when you saw that he had atlanto-occipital dislocation?
Dr. Einav: As a surgeon, you have a gut feeling in regard to the general examination of the patient. But I never rely on gut feelings. On the CT, I understood exactly what he had, what we needed to do, and the time frame.
Dr. Wilson: You’ve done these types of surgeries before, right? Obviously, no one has done a lot of them because this isn’t very common. But you knew what to do. Did you have a plan? Where does your experience come into play in a situation like this?
Dr. Einav: I graduated from the spine program of Toronto University, where I did a fellowship in trauma of the spine and complex spine surgery. I had very good teachers, and during my fellowship I treated a few cases in older patients that were similar but not the same. Therefore, I knew exactly what needed to be done.
Dr. Wilson: For those of us who aren’t surgeons, take us into the OR with you. This is obviously an incredibly delicate procedure. You are high up in the spinal cord at the base of the brain. The slightest mistake could have devastating consequences. What are the key elements of this procedure? What can go wrong here? What is the number-one thing you have to look out for when you’re trying to fix an internal decapitation?
Dr. Einav: The key element in surgeries of the cervical spine – trauma and complex spine surgery – is planning. I never go to the OR without knowing what I’m going to do. I have a few plans – plan A, plan B, plan C – in case something fails. So, I definitely know what the next step will be. I always think about the surgery a few hours before, if I have time to prepare.
The second thing that is very important is teamwork. The team needs to be coordinated. Everybody needs to know what their job is. With these types of injuries, it’s not the time for rookies. If you are new, please stand back and let the more experienced people do that job. I’m talking about surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists – everyone.
Another important thing in planning is choosing the right hardware. For example, in this case we had a problem because most of the hardware is designed for adults, and we had to improvise because there isn’t a lot of hardware on the market for the pediatric population. The adult plates and screws are too big, so we had to improvise.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us more about that. How do you improvise spinal hardware for a 12-year-old?
Dr. Einav: In this case, I chose to use hardware from one of the companies that works with us.
You can see in this model the area of the injury, and the area that we worked on. To perform the surgery, I had to use some plates and rods from a different company. This company’s (NuVasive) hardware has a small attachment to the skull, which was helpful for affixing the skull to the cervical spine, instead of using a big plate that would sit at the base of the skull and would not be very good for him. Most of the hardware is made for adults and not for kids.
Dr. Wilson: Will that hardware preserve the motor function of his neck? Will he be able to turn his head and extend and flex it?
Dr. Einav: The injury leads to instability and destruction of both articulations between the head and neck. Therefore, those articulations won’t be able to function the same way in the future. There is a decrease of something like 50% of the flexion and extension of Hassan’s cervical spine. Therefore, I decided that in this case there would be no chance of saving Hassan’s motor function unless we performed a fusion between the head and the neck, and therefore I decided that this would be the best procedure with the best survival rate. So, in the future, he will have some diminished flexion, extension, and rotation of his head.
Dr. Wilson: How long did his surgery take?
Dr. Einav: To be honest, I don’t remember. But I can tell you that it took us time. It was very challenging to coordinate with everyone. The most problematic part of the surgery to perform is what we call “flip-over.”
The anesthesiologist intubated the patient when he was supine, and later on, we flipped him prone to operate on the spine. This maneuver can actually lead to injury by itself, and injury at this level is fatal. So, we took our time and got Hassan into the OR. The anesthesiologist did a great job with the GlideScope – inserting the endotracheal tube. Later on, we neuromonitored him. Basically, we connected Hassan’s peripheral nerves to a computer and monitored his motor function. Gently we flipped him over, and after that we saw a little change in his motor function, so we had to modify his position so we could preserve his motor function. We then started the procedure, which took a few hours. I don’t know exactly how many.
Dr. Wilson: That just speaks to how delicate this is for everything from the intubation, where typically you’re manipulating the head, to the repositioning. Clearly this requires a lot of teamwork.
What happened after the operation? How is he doing?
Dr. Einav: After the operation, Hassan had a great recovery. He’s doing well. He doesn’t have any motor or sensory deficits. He’s able to ambulate without any aid. He had no signs of infection, which can happen after a car accident, neither from his abdominal wound nor from the occipital cervical surgery. He feels well. We saw him in the clinic. We removed his collar. We monitored him at the clinic. He looked amazing.
Dr. Wilson: That’s incredible. Are there long-term risks for him that you need to be looking out for?
Dr. Einav: Yes, and that’s the reason that we are monitoring him post surgery. While he was in the hospital, we monitored his motor and sensory functions, as well as his wound healing. Later on, in the clinic, for a few weeks after surgery we monitored for any failure of the hardware and bone graft. We check for healing of the bone graft and bone substitutes we put in to heal those bones.
Dr. Wilson: He will grow, right? He’s only 12, so he still has some years of growth in him. Is he going to need more surgery or any kind of hardware upgrade?
Dr. Einav: I hope not. In my surgeries, I never rely on the hardware for long durations. If I decide to do, for example, fusion, I rely on the hardware for a certain amount of time. And then I plan that the biology will do the work. If I plan for fusion, I put bone grafts in the preferred area for a fusion. Then if the hardware fails, I wouldn’t need to take out the hardware, and there would be no change in the condition of the patient.
Dr. Wilson: What an incredible story. It’s clear that you and your team kept your cool despite a very high-acuity situation with a ton of risk. What a tremendous outcome that this boy is not only alive but fully functional. So, congratulations to you and your team. That was very strong work.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much. I would like to thank our team. We have to remember that the surgeon is not standing alone in the war. Hassan’s story is a success story of a very big group of people from various backgrounds and religions. They work day and night to help people and save lives. To the paramedics, the physiologists, the traumatologists, the pediatricians, the nurses, the physiotherapists, and obviously the surgeons, a big thank you. His story is our success story.
Dr. Wilson: It’s inspiring to see so many people come together to do what we all are here for, which is to fight against suffering, disease, and death. Thank you for keeping up that fight. And thank you for joining me here.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.
Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.
Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?
Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.
Dr. Wilson: “Injury to the cervical spine” might be something of an understatement. He had what’s called atlanto-occipital dislocation, colloquially often referred to as internal decapitation. Can you tell us what that means? It sounds terrifying.
Dr. Einav: It’s an injury to the ligaments between the occiput and the upper cervical spine, with or without bony fracture. The atlanto-occipital joint is formed by the superior articular facet of the atlas and the occipital condyle, stabilized by an articular capsule between the head and neck, and is supported by various ligaments around it that stabilize the joint and allow joint movements, including flexion, extension, and some rotation in the lower levels.
Dr. Wilson: This joint has several degrees of freedom, which means it needs a lot of support. With this type of injury, where essentially you have severing of the ligaments, is it usually survivable? How dangerous is this?
Dr. Einav: The mortality rate is 50%-60%, depending on the primary impact, the injury, transportation later on, and then the surgery and surgical management.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us a bit about this patient’s status when he came to your medical center. I assume he was in bad shape.
Dr. Einav: Hassan arrived at our medical center with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. He was fully conscious. He was hemodynamically stable except for a bad laceration on his abdomen. He had a Philadelphia collar around his neck. He was transported by chopper because the paramedics suspected that he had a cervical spine injury and decided to bring him to a Level 1 trauma center.
He was monitored and we treated him according to the ATLS [advanced trauma life support] protocol. He didn’t have any gross sensory deficits, but he was a little confused about the whole situation and the accident. Therefore, we could do a general examination but we couldn’t rely on that regarding any sensory deficit that he may or may not have. We decided as a team that it would be better to slow down and control the situation. We decided not to operate on him immediately. We basically stabilized him and made sure that he didn’t have any traumatic internal organ damage. Later on we took him to the OR and performed surgery.
Dr. Wilson: It’s amazing that he had intact motor function, considering the extent of his injury. The spinal cord was spared somewhat during the injury. There must have been a moment when you realized that this kid, who was conscious and could move all four extremities, had a very severe neck injury. Was that due to a CT scan or physical exam? And what was your feeling when you saw that he had atlanto-occipital dislocation?
Dr. Einav: As a surgeon, you have a gut feeling in regard to the general examination of the patient. But I never rely on gut feelings. On the CT, I understood exactly what he had, what we needed to do, and the time frame.
Dr. Wilson: You’ve done these types of surgeries before, right? Obviously, no one has done a lot of them because this isn’t very common. But you knew what to do. Did you have a plan? Where does your experience come into play in a situation like this?
Dr. Einav: I graduated from the spine program of Toronto University, where I did a fellowship in trauma of the spine and complex spine surgery. I had very good teachers, and during my fellowship I treated a few cases in older patients that were similar but not the same. Therefore, I knew exactly what needed to be done.
Dr. Wilson: For those of us who aren’t surgeons, take us into the OR with you. This is obviously an incredibly delicate procedure. You are high up in the spinal cord at the base of the brain. The slightest mistake could have devastating consequences. What are the key elements of this procedure? What can go wrong here? What is the number-one thing you have to look out for when you’re trying to fix an internal decapitation?
Dr. Einav: The key element in surgeries of the cervical spine – trauma and complex spine surgery – is planning. I never go to the OR without knowing what I’m going to do. I have a few plans – plan A, plan B, plan C – in case something fails. So, I definitely know what the next step will be. I always think about the surgery a few hours before, if I have time to prepare.
The second thing that is very important is teamwork. The team needs to be coordinated. Everybody needs to know what their job is. With these types of injuries, it’s not the time for rookies. If you are new, please stand back and let the more experienced people do that job. I’m talking about surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists – everyone.
Another important thing in planning is choosing the right hardware. For example, in this case we had a problem because most of the hardware is designed for adults, and we had to improvise because there isn’t a lot of hardware on the market for the pediatric population. The adult plates and screws are too big, so we had to improvise.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us more about that. How do you improvise spinal hardware for a 12-year-old?
Dr. Einav: In this case, I chose to use hardware from one of the companies that works with us.
You can see in this model the area of the injury, and the area that we worked on. To perform the surgery, I had to use some plates and rods from a different company. This company’s (NuVasive) hardware has a small attachment to the skull, which was helpful for affixing the skull to the cervical spine, instead of using a big plate that would sit at the base of the skull and would not be very good for him. Most of the hardware is made for adults and not for kids.
Dr. Wilson: Will that hardware preserve the motor function of his neck? Will he be able to turn his head and extend and flex it?
Dr. Einav: The injury leads to instability and destruction of both articulations between the head and neck. Therefore, those articulations won’t be able to function the same way in the future. There is a decrease of something like 50% of the flexion and extension of Hassan’s cervical spine. Therefore, I decided that in this case there would be no chance of saving Hassan’s motor function unless we performed a fusion between the head and the neck, and therefore I decided that this would be the best procedure with the best survival rate. So, in the future, he will have some diminished flexion, extension, and rotation of his head.
Dr. Wilson: How long did his surgery take?
Dr. Einav: To be honest, I don’t remember. But I can tell you that it took us time. It was very challenging to coordinate with everyone. The most problematic part of the surgery to perform is what we call “flip-over.”
The anesthesiologist intubated the patient when he was supine, and later on, we flipped him prone to operate on the spine. This maneuver can actually lead to injury by itself, and injury at this level is fatal. So, we took our time and got Hassan into the OR. The anesthesiologist did a great job with the GlideScope – inserting the endotracheal tube. Later on, we neuromonitored him. Basically, we connected Hassan’s peripheral nerves to a computer and monitored his motor function. Gently we flipped him over, and after that we saw a little change in his motor function, so we had to modify his position so we could preserve his motor function. We then started the procedure, which took a few hours. I don’t know exactly how many.
Dr. Wilson: That just speaks to how delicate this is for everything from the intubation, where typically you’re manipulating the head, to the repositioning. Clearly this requires a lot of teamwork.
What happened after the operation? How is he doing?
Dr. Einav: After the operation, Hassan had a great recovery. He’s doing well. He doesn’t have any motor or sensory deficits. He’s able to ambulate without any aid. He had no signs of infection, which can happen after a car accident, neither from his abdominal wound nor from the occipital cervical surgery. He feels well. We saw him in the clinic. We removed his collar. We monitored him at the clinic. He looked amazing.
Dr. Wilson: That’s incredible. Are there long-term risks for him that you need to be looking out for?
Dr. Einav: Yes, and that’s the reason that we are monitoring him post surgery. While he was in the hospital, we monitored his motor and sensory functions, as well as his wound healing. Later on, in the clinic, for a few weeks after surgery we monitored for any failure of the hardware and bone graft. We check for healing of the bone graft and bone substitutes we put in to heal those bones.
Dr. Wilson: He will grow, right? He’s only 12, so he still has some years of growth in him. Is he going to need more surgery or any kind of hardware upgrade?
Dr. Einav: I hope not. In my surgeries, I never rely on the hardware for long durations. If I decide to do, for example, fusion, I rely on the hardware for a certain amount of time. And then I plan that the biology will do the work. If I plan for fusion, I put bone grafts in the preferred area for a fusion. Then if the hardware fails, I wouldn’t need to take out the hardware, and there would be no change in the condition of the patient.
Dr. Wilson: What an incredible story. It’s clear that you and your team kept your cool despite a very high-acuity situation with a ton of risk. What a tremendous outcome that this boy is not only alive but fully functional. So, congratulations to you and your team. That was very strong work.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much. I would like to thank our team. We have to remember that the surgeon is not standing alone in the war. Hassan’s story is a success story of a very big group of people from various backgrounds and religions. They work day and night to help people and save lives. To the paramedics, the physiologists, the traumatologists, the pediatricians, the nurses, the physiotherapists, and obviously the surgeons, a big thank you. His story is our success story.
Dr. Wilson: It’s inspiring to see so many people come together to do what we all are here for, which is to fight against suffering, disease, and death. Thank you for keeping up that fight. And thank you for joining me here.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE: I am joined today by Dr. Ohad Einav. He’s a staff surgeon in orthopedics at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem. He’s with me to talk about an absolutely incredible surgical case, something that is terrifying to most non–orthopedic surgeons and I imagine is fairly scary for spine surgeons like him as well. But what we don’t have is information about how this works from a medical perspective. So, first of all, Dr. Einav, thank you for taking time to speak with me today.
Ohad Einav, MD: Thank you for having me.
Dr. Wilson: Can you tell us about Suleiman Hassan and what happened to him before he came into your care?
Dr. Einav: Hassan is a 12-year-old child who was riding his bicycle on the West Bank, about 40 minutes from here. Unfortunately, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and he suffered injuries to his abdomen and cervical spine. He was transported to our service by helicopter from the scene of the accident.
Dr. Wilson: “Injury to the cervical spine” might be something of an understatement. He had what’s called atlanto-occipital dislocation, colloquially often referred to as internal decapitation. Can you tell us what that means? It sounds terrifying.
Dr. Einav: It’s an injury to the ligaments between the occiput and the upper cervical spine, with or without bony fracture. The atlanto-occipital joint is formed by the superior articular facet of the atlas and the occipital condyle, stabilized by an articular capsule between the head and neck, and is supported by various ligaments around it that stabilize the joint and allow joint movements, including flexion, extension, and some rotation in the lower levels.
Dr. Wilson: This joint has several degrees of freedom, which means it needs a lot of support. With this type of injury, where essentially you have severing of the ligaments, is it usually survivable? How dangerous is this?
Dr. Einav: The mortality rate is 50%-60%, depending on the primary impact, the injury, transportation later on, and then the surgery and surgical management.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us a bit about this patient’s status when he came to your medical center. I assume he was in bad shape.
Dr. Einav: Hassan arrived at our medical center with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. He was fully conscious. He was hemodynamically stable except for a bad laceration on his abdomen. He had a Philadelphia collar around his neck. He was transported by chopper because the paramedics suspected that he had a cervical spine injury and decided to bring him to a Level 1 trauma center.
He was monitored and we treated him according to the ATLS [advanced trauma life support] protocol. He didn’t have any gross sensory deficits, but he was a little confused about the whole situation and the accident. Therefore, we could do a general examination but we couldn’t rely on that regarding any sensory deficit that he may or may not have. We decided as a team that it would be better to slow down and control the situation. We decided not to operate on him immediately. We basically stabilized him and made sure that he didn’t have any traumatic internal organ damage. Later on we took him to the OR and performed surgery.
Dr. Wilson: It’s amazing that he had intact motor function, considering the extent of his injury. The spinal cord was spared somewhat during the injury. There must have been a moment when you realized that this kid, who was conscious and could move all four extremities, had a very severe neck injury. Was that due to a CT scan or physical exam? And what was your feeling when you saw that he had atlanto-occipital dislocation?
Dr. Einav: As a surgeon, you have a gut feeling in regard to the general examination of the patient. But I never rely on gut feelings. On the CT, I understood exactly what he had, what we needed to do, and the time frame.
Dr. Wilson: You’ve done these types of surgeries before, right? Obviously, no one has done a lot of them because this isn’t very common. But you knew what to do. Did you have a plan? Where does your experience come into play in a situation like this?
Dr. Einav: I graduated from the spine program of Toronto University, where I did a fellowship in trauma of the spine and complex spine surgery. I had very good teachers, and during my fellowship I treated a few cases in older patients that were similar but not the same. Therefore, I knew exactly what needed to be done.
Dr. Wilson: For those of us who aren’t surgeons, take us into the OR with you. This is obviously an incredibly delicate procedure. You are high up in the spinal cord at the base of the brain. The slightest mistake could have devastating consequences. What are the key elements of this procedure? What can go wrong here? What is the number-one thing you have to look out for when you’re trying to fix an internal decapitation?
Dr. Einav: The key element in surgeries of the cervical spine – trauma and complex spine surgery – is planning. I never go to the OR without knowing what I’m going to do. I have a few plans – plan A, plan B, plan C – in case something fails. So, I definitely know what the next step will be. I always think about the surgery a few hours before, if I have time to prepare.
The second thing that is very important is teamwork. The team needs to be coordinated. Everybody needs to know what their job is. With these types of injuries, it’s not the time for rookies. If you are new, please stand back and let the more experienced people do that job. I’m talking about surgeons, nurses, anesthesiologists – everyone.
Another important thing in planning is choosing the right hardware. For example, in this case we had a problem because most of the hardware is designed for adults, and we had to improvise because there isn’t a lot of hardware on the market for the pediatric population. The adult plates and screws are too big, so we had to improvise.
Dr. Wilson: Tell us more about that. How do you improvise spinal hardware for a 12-year-old?
Dr. Einav: In this case, I chose to use hardware from one of the companies that works with us.
You can see in this model the area of the injury, and the area that we worked on. To perform the surgery, I had to use some plates and rods from a different company. This company’s (NuVasive) hardware has a small attachment to the skull, which was helpful for affixing the skull to the cervical spine, instead of using a big plate that would sit at the base of the skull and would not be very good for him. Most of the hardware is made for adults and not for kids.
Dr. Wilson: Will that hardware preserve the motor function of his neck? Will he be able to turn his head and extend and flex it?
Dr. Einav: The injury leads to instability and destruction of both articulations between the head and neck. Therefore, those articulations won’t be able to function the same way in the future. There is a decrease of something like 50% of the flexion and extension of Hassan’s cervical spine. Therefore, I decided that in this case there would be no chance of saving Hassan’s motor function unless we performed a fusion between the head and the neck, and therefore I decided that this would be the best procedure with the best survival rate. So, in the future, he will have some diminished flexion, extension, and rotation of his head.
Dr. Wilson: How long did his surgery take?
Dr. Einav: To be honest, I don’t remember. But I can tell you that it took us time. It was very challenging to coordinate with everyone. The most problematic part of the surgery to perform is what we call “flip-over.”
The anesthesiologist intubated the patient when he was supine, and later on, we flipped him prone to operate on the spine. This maneuver can actually lead to injury by itself, and injury at this level is fatal. So, we took our time and got Hassan into the OR. The anesthesiologist did a great job with the GlideScope – inserting the endotracheal tube. Later on, we neuromonitored him. Basically, we connected Hassan’s peripheral nerves to a computer and monitored his motor function. Gently we flipped him over, and after that we saw a little change in his motor function, so we had to modify his position so we could preserve his motor function. We then started the procedure, which took a few hours. I don’t know exactly how many.
Dr. Wilson: That just speaks to how delicate this is for everything from the intubation, where typically you’re manipulating the head, to the repositioning. Clearly this requires a lot of teamwork.
What happened after the operation? How is he doing?
Dr. Einav: After the operation, Hassan had a great recovery. He’s doing well. He doesn’t have any motor or sensory deficits. He’s able to ambulate without any aid. He had no signs of infection, which can happen after a car accident, neither from his abdominal wound nor from the occipital cervical surgery. He feels well. We saw him in the clinic. We removed his collar. We monitored him at the clinic. He looked amazing.
Dr. Wilson: That’s incredible. Are there long-term risks for him that you need to be looking out for?
Dr. Einav: Yes, and that’s the reason that we are monitoring him post surgery. While he was in the hospital, we monitored his motor and sensory functions, as well as his wound healing. Later on, in the clinic, for a few weeks after surgery we monitored for any failure of the hardware and bone graft. We check for healing of the bone graft and bone substitutes we put in to heal those bones.
Dr. Wilson: He will grow, right? He’s only 12, so he still has some years of growth in him. Is he going to need more surgery or any kind of hardware upgrade?
Dr. Einav: I hope not. In my surgeries, I never rely on the hardware for long durations. If I decide to do, for example, fusion, I rely on the hardware for a certain amount of time. And then I plan that the biology will do the work. If I plan for fusion, I put bone grafts in the preferred area for a fusion. Then if the hardware fails, I wouldn’t need to take out the hardware, and there would be no change in the condition of the patient.
Dr. Wilson: What an incredible story. It’s clear that you and your team kept your cool despite a very high-acuity situation with a ton of risk. What a tremendous outcome that this boy is not only alive but fully functional. So, congratulations to you and your team. That was very strong work.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much. I would like to thank our team. We have to remember that the surgeon is not standing alone in the war. Hassan’s story is a success story of a very big group of people from various backgrounds and religions. They work day and night to help people and save lives. To the paramedics, the physiologists, the traumatologists, the pediatricians, the nurses, the physiotherapists, and obviously the surgeons, a big thank you. His story is our success story.
Dr. Wilson: It’s inspiring to see so many people come together to do what we all are here for, which is to fight against suffering, disease, and death. Thank you for keeping up that fight. And thank you for joining me here.
Dr. Einav: Thank you very much.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
New guideline for managing toothache in children
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or both medications together can effectively manage a child’s toothache as a stopgap until definitive treatment is available, according to a new guideline.
The guideline, published in the September issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, does not recommend opioids for a toothache or after tooth extraction in this population.
Opioid prescriptions for children entail risk for hospitalization and death. Yet, some dentists continued to prescribe contraindicated opioids to young children after a Food and Drug Administration warning in 2017 about the use of tramadol and codeine in this population, the guideline notes.
Opioid prescribing to children also continued after the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2018 recommended acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line medications for pain management and said that the use of opioids should be “rare.”
Although the new guidance, which also covers pain management after tooth extraction, is geared toward general dentists, it could help emergency clinicians and primary care providers manage children’s pain when definitive treatment is not immediately available, the authors noted.
Definitive treatment could include pulpectomy, nonsurgical root canal, incision for drainage of an abscess, or tooth extraction.
If definitive care in 2-3 days is not possible, parents should let the health care team know, the guideline says.
“These pharmacologic strategies will alleviate dental pain temporarily until a referral for definitive dental treatment is in place,” the authors wrote.
The American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed the new guideline, which was developed by researchers with the ADA Science & Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine in Philadelphia.
The guideline recommends ibuprofen and, for children older than 2 years, naproxen as NSAID options. The use of naproxen in children younger than 12 years for this purpose is off label, they noted.
The guideline suggests doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs on the basis of age and weight that may differ from those on medication packaging.
“When acetaminophen or NSAIDs are administered as directed, the risk of harm to children from either medication is low,” the guideline states.
“While prescribing opioids to children has become less frequent overall, this guideline ensures that both dentists and parents have evidence-based recommendations to determine the most appropriate treatment for dental pain,” senior guideline author Paul Moore, DMD, PhD, MPH, professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Dental Medicine, said in a news release from the ADA. “Parents and caregivers can take comfort that widely available medications that have no abuse potential, such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen, are safe and effective for helping their children find relief from short-term dental pain.”
A 2018 review by Dr. Moore and coauthors found that NSAIDs, with or without acetaminophen, were effective and minimized adverse events, relative to opioids, for acute dental pain across ages.
The new recommendations for children will “allow for better treatment of this kind of pain” and “will help prevent unnecessary prescribing of medications with abuse potential, including opioids,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the news release.
The report stems from a 3-year, $1.5 million grant awarded by the FDA in 2020 to the University of Pittsburgh and the ADA Science & Research Institute to develop a clinical practice guideline for the management of acute pain in dentistry in children, adolescents, and adults. The recommendations for adolescents and adults are still in development.
The report was supported by an FDA grant, and the guideline authors received technical and methodologic support from the agency. Some authors disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or both medications together can effectively manage a child’s toothache as a stopgap until definitive treatment is available, according to a new guideline.
The guideline, published in the September issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, does not recommend opioids for a toothache or after tooth extraction in this population.
Opioid prescriptions for children entail risk for hospitalization and death. Yet, some dentists continued to prescribe contraindicated opioids to young children after a Food and Drug Administration warning in 2017 about the use of tramadol and codeine in this population, the guideline notes.
Opioid prescribing to children also continued after the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2018 recommended acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line medications for pain management and said that the use of opioids should be “rare.”
Although the new guidance, which also covers pain management after tooth extraction, is geared toward general dentists, it could help emergency clinicians and primary care providers manage children’s pain when definitive treatment is not immediately available, the authors noted.
Definitive treatment could include pulpectomy, nonsurgical root canal, incision for drainage of an abscess, or tooth extraction.
If definitive care in 2-3 days is not possible, parents should let the health care team know, the guideline says.
“These pharmacologic strategies will alleviate dental pain temporarily until a referral for definitive dental treatment is in place,” the authors wrote.
The American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed the new guideline, which was developed by researchers with the ADA Science & Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine in Philadelphia.
The guideline recommends ibuprofen and, for children older than 2 years, naproxen as NSAID options. The use of naproxen in children younger than 12 years for this purpose is off label, they noted.
The guideline suggests doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs on the basis of age and weight that may differ from those on medication packaging.
“When acetaminophen or NSAIDs are administered as directed, the risk of harm to children from either medication is low,” the guideline states.
“While prescribing opioids to children has become less frequent overall, this guideline ensures that both dentists and parents have evidence-based recommendations to determine the most appropriate treatment for dental pain,” senior guideline author Paul Moore, DMD, PhD, MPH, professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Dental Medicine, said in a news release from the ADA. “Parents and caregivers can take comfort that widely available medications that have no abuse potential, such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen, are safe and effective for helping their children find relief from short-term dental pain.”
A 2018 review by Dr. Moore and coauthors found that NSAIDs, with or without acetaminophen, were effective and minimized adverse events, relative to opioids, for acute dental pain across ages.
The new recommendations for children will “allow for better treatment of this kind of pain” and “will help prevent unnecessary prescribing of medications with abuse potential, including opioids,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the news release.
The report stems from a 3-year, $1.5 million grant awarded by the FDA in 2020 to the University of Pittsburgh and the ADA Science & Research Institute to develop a clinical practice guideline for the management of acute pain in dentistry in children, adolescents, and adults. The recommendations for adolescents and adults are still in development.
The report was supported by an FDA grant, and the guideline authors received technical and methodologic support from the agency. Some authors disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, or both medications together can effectively manage a child’s toothache as a stopgap until definitive treatment is available, according to a new guideline.
The guideline, published in the September issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, does not recommend opioids for a toothache or after tooth extraction in this population.
Opioid prescriptions for children entail risk for hospitalization and death. Yet, some dentists continued to prescribe contraindicated opioids to young children after a Food and Drug Administration warning in 2017 about the use of tramadol and codeine in this population, the guideline notes.
Opioid prescribing to children also continued after the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2018 recommended acetaminophen and NSAIDs as first-line medications for pain management and said that the use of opioids should be “rare.”
Although the new guidance, which also covers pain management after tooth extraction, is geared toward general dentists, it could help emergency clinicians and primary care providers manage children’s pain when definitive treatment is not immediately available, the authors noted.
Definitive treatment could include pulpectomy, nonsurgical root canal, incision for drainage of an abscess, or tooth extraction.
If definitive care in 2-3 days is not possible, parents should let the health care team know, the guideline says.
“These pharmacologic strategies will alleviate dental pain temporarily until a referral for definitive dental treatment is in place,” the authors wrote.
The American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed the new guideline, which was developed by researchers with the ADA Science & Research Institute, the University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine, and the Center for Integrative Global Oral Health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine in Philadelphia.
The guideline recommends ibuprofen and, for children older than 2 years, naproxen as NSAID options. The use of naproxen in children younger than 12 years for this purpose is off label, they noted.
The guideline suggests doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs on the basis of age and weight that may differ from those on medication packaging.
“When acetaminophen or NSAIDs are administered as directed, the risk of harm to children from either medication is low,” the guideline states.
“While prescribing opioids to children has become less frequent overall, this guideline ensures that both dentists and parents have evidence-based recommendations to determine the most appropriate treatment for dental pain,” senior guideline author Paul Moore, DMD, PhD, MPH, professor emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Dental Medicine, said in a news release from the ADA. “Parents and caregivers can take comfort that widely available medications that have no abuse potential, such as acetaminophen or ibuprofen, are safe and effective for helping their children find relief from short-term dental pain.”
A 2018 review by Dr. Moore and coauthors found that NSAIDs, with or without acetaminophen, were effective and minimized adverse events, relative to opioids, for acute dental pain across ages.
The new recommendations for children will “allow for better treatment of this kind of pain” and “will help prevent unnecessary prescribing of medications with abuse potential, including opioids,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the news release.
The report stems from a 3-year, $1.5 million grant awarded by the FDA in 2020 to the University of Pittsburgh and the ADA Science & Research Institute to develop a clinical practice guideline for the management of acute pain in dentistry in children, adolescents, and adults. The recommendations for adolescents and adults are still in development.
The report was supported by an FDA grant, and the guideline authors received technical and methodologic support from the agency. Some authors disclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.