The prevalence of head and facial injuries among children in Saudi Arabia following road traffic crashes

Abstract

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are the leading cause of death among children in Saudi Arabia. Childhood injuries can be prevented or minimized if safety measures, such as car seats, are implemented. The literature on the epidemiology of head and facial injury among children is limited, which affects the ability to understand the extent of the burden and hinders investment in public health prevention. OBJECTIVE: Describe the epidemiology of head and facial injuries among children admitted to the hospital following MVCs. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Five hospitals in several regions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We collected data on all patients ≤16 years old, who were admitted to the hospital following MVCs between 2016-2019. Differences in various characteristics like head injury status and age groups were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Head and facial injuries. SAMPLE SIZE: 253 patients. RESULTS: Of the injured population, 97 (38.3%) sustained a head injury, and 88 (34.8%) had a facial injury. Thirteen (9.1%) children were driving the car at the time of the crash. About half of the children were seated in the back (53.8%) without a seatbelt or safety seat. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of head and facial injuries is striking. In addition, the study revealed that driving among children is not uncommon, which warrants monitoring and implementing interventions. Improved documentation of restraint use and police enforcement of safety laws can play a significant role in reducing associated injuries. The study findings highlight the importance of combination or rear seating as well as age-appropriate restraint in order to reduce the likelihood of head or facial injuries among children. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study using the electronic search system to identify patients, but may have missed cases that were not coded correctly. Large amount of missing data for some variables. Additionally, the analysis was limited to those admitted to the hospital. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.