Border-fence falls versus domestic falls at a South Texas trauma center

Abstract

ObjectivesFalling from height may lead to significant injuries and time hospitalized; however, there are few studies comparing the specific mechanism of fall. The purpose of this study was to compare injuries from falls after attempting to cross the USA-Mexico border fence (intentional) with injuries from domestic falls (unintentional) of comparable height.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included all patients admitted after a fall from a height of 15–30 ft to a level II trauma center between April 2014 and November 2019. Patient characteristics were compared by falls from the border fence with those who fell domestically. Fisher’s exact test, χ2test and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate. A significance level of α<0.05 was used.ResultsOf the 124 patients included, 64 (52%) were falls from the border fence while 60 (48%) were domestic falls. Patients sustaining injuries from border falls were on average younger than patients who had domestic falls (32.6 (10) vs 40.0 (16), p=0.002), more likely males (58% vs 41%, p<0.001), fell from a significantly higher distance (20 (20–25) vs 16.5 (15–25), p<0.001), and had a significantly lower median injury severity score (ISS) (5 (4–10) vs 9 (5–16.5), p=0.001). Additionally, compared with domestic falls, border falls had fewer injuries to the head (3% vs 25%, p=0.004) and chest (5% vs 27%, p=0.007), yet more extremity injuries (73% vs 42%, p=0.003), and less had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay (30% vs 63%, p=0.002). No significant differences in mortality were found.ConclusionPatients sustaining injuries from border crossing falls were slightly younger, and although fell from higher, had a lower ISS, more extremity injuries, and fewer were admitted to the ICU compared with patients sustaining falls domestically. There was no difference in mortality between groups.Level of evidenceLevel III, retrospective study.