Trauma Center Type Does Not Predict Outcomes in Pediatric Liver Injury

Standardizing the Management of Pediatric Solid Organ Injury

The management of blunt abdominal trauma in children has shifted significantly toward nonoperative strategies, yet high-grade injuries still present a high risk for life-threatening hemorrhage [1, 2]. Meta-analytic data indicate that blunt abdominal injury is a potent predictor of mortality with an adjusted odds ratio of 8.18 (95% confidence interval, 4.97 to 13.45), highlighting the necessity for precise triage [1]. While pediatric-specific protocols emphasize splenic and hepatic preservation, the decision to transition from observation to invasive intervention, such as angioembolization (a catheter-based procedure used to occlude bleeding vessels), remains a critical clinical inflection point [3, 4, 5]. Previous registry data reveal that clinical reality often deviates from guidelines. For instance, while nonoperative management is preferred, splenectomy rates for high-grade injuries can reach 58.5% in certain trauma systems [4]. Because specialized pediatric trauma centers are associated with higher rates of successful nonoperative management, ensuring consistent care across different facilities is essential for reducing long-term morbidity [2, 6]. A nationwide analysis now examines whether the type of trauma center truly dictates the clinical trajectory for children with severe liver injuries, providing clarity for emergency physicians and trauma surgeons making rapid triage decisions.

A National Cohort of High-Grade Hepatic Trauma

This Level III cohort study utilized data from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, spanning the years 2017 to 2022. The researchers identified a total population of 5,498 children aged 17 and below who sustained high-grade blunt hepatic injuries. These injuries were specifically defined as American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grades III, IV, and V based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale, representing the most severe spectrum of liver trauma, such as deep parenchymal lacerations or major vascular disruption, that often require surgical or radiological intervention.

To determine if the type of facility influenced clinical management or survival, the study compared outcomes across three distinct environments: pediatric trauma centers, adult trauma centers, and hybrid trauma centers (adult facilities with added pediatric verification). The authors employed backward stepwise regression, a statistical method that systematically removes non-significant variables from a model to isolate the strongest independent predictors of specific outcomes. This analysis evaluated the primary endpoints of hemorrhage control laparotomy, hepatic angioembolization, and mortality, ensuring that confounding factors such as injury severity or patient age were accounted for when assessing the true impact of hospital verification status.

Baseline Disparities in Patient Acuity and Center Type

The initial analysis of the 5,498 patients revealed significant demographic and clinical variations based on the type of receiving facility. Children presenting to an adult trauma center were older (p < 0.01) compared to those treated at pediatric or hybrid facilities. Despite this age difference, the anatomical severity of the liver injuries was remarkably consistent across all settings. The researchers found that there was no difference in the distribution of Grade III, IV, or V injuries between center types (p = 0.50), suggesting that the localized challenge posed by the hepatic injury itself was uniform regardless of the hospital designation.

However, the overall clinical picture of patients at pediatric trauma centers suggested a lower level of systemic acuity. Specifically, pediatric trauma center presentation was associated with lower injury severity scores (p < 0.01), a summary measure of the total anatomical burden from all injuries sustained. This lower overall severity was further reflected by the fact that pediatric center presentation was associated with higher rates of isolated injury (p < 0.01), meaning these children were less likely to have concomitant trauma to the brain, chest, or extremities. Furthermore, these patients exhibited more stable hemodynamics upon arrival. Pediatric center presentation was associated with lower rates of positive shock index (p < 0.01), a clinical metric where the heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure exceeds a normal threshold, indicating potential occult hemorrhage.

Because the cohort at pediatric facilities was generally more stable and had fewer associated injuries, pediatric center presentation was associated with lower rates of early blood transfusion (p < 0.01). These data indicate that while the grade of liver injury remains constant across facilities, adult trauma centers tend to receive older children with more complex, multi-system trauma and higher degrees of physiological shock.

Intervention Rates and Survival Outcomes

The researchers observed distinct variations in the utilization of invasive procedures based on the type of trauma center where the child was treated. In the univariate analysis, which examines each variable individually without adjusting for confounding factors, hepatic angioembolization rates were 2.7% at adult trauma centers, 1.8% at hybrid trauma centers, and 1.0% at pediatric trauma centers (p < 0.01). A similar trend was noted for surgical interventions. Hemorrhage control laparotomy rates were 3.3% at adult centers, 2.3% at hybrid centers, and 1.1% at pediatric centers (p < 0.01). These figures initially indicate that children treated at adult-only facilities were three times as likely to undergo a laparotomy for bleeding control compared to those treated at dedicated pediatric centers.

Survival outcomes also appeared to differ significantly across the three facility types before adjusting for patient-specific factors. The study found that mortality rates were 7.1% at adult centers, 5.0% at hybrid centers, and 3.2% at pediatric centers (p < 0.01). While these raw percentages suggest a potential survival advantage at pediatric-specific institutions, they must be interpreted within the context of the higher patient acuity and older age profiles previously noted at adult centers. These univariate findings established a baseline disparity in both intervention frequency and patient survival, setting the stage for a multivariate regression analysis to determine if the facility designation independently influenced these clinical outcomes.

Verification Status as a Non-Independent Predictor

To determine whether the facility type itself influenced clinical decisions and patient survival, the researchers performed a backward stepwise regression. This multivariate analysis accounted for the baseline differences in patient age, injury severity, and hemodynamic stability observed across the different center types. The results of this rigorous adjustment demonstrated that trauma center verification status did not independently predict hepatic angioembolization. Furthermore, the analysis confirmed that trauma center verification status did not independently predict hemorrhage control laparotomy. These findings suggest that the higher rates of invasive procedures initially observed at adult facilities were a reflection of the more complex and severe injury profiles treated at those centers, rather than a difference in surgical philosophy or institutional protocol.

The study also addressed the critical question of whether a child's risk of death is influenced by the type of trauma center providing treatment. While the raw data showed higher mortality at adult-only facilities, the regression model revealed that trauma center verification status did not independently predict mortality. Instead, clinical outcomes were driven entirely by patient-specific factors, such as the severity of the liver injury and the presence of physiological shock. This national analysis of 5,498 children indicates that the disparities in survival and intervention rates seen in smaller, regional studies do not persist at a national level. For the practicing clinician, these results offer vital reassurance. They suggest that the standardized principles of pediatric trauma management have been successfully integrated across various hospital settings, ensuring that injury characteristics, rather than facility designation, dictate the course of care. Consequently, emergency physicians can confidently triage pediatric patients to the nearest appropriate high-level trauma center without fearing that an adult facility will default to unnecessary invasive interventions.

References

1. Endeshaw D, Delie AM, Adal O, et al. Mortality and its predictors in abdominal injury across sub-Saharan Africa: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Emergency Medicine. 2024. doi:10.1186/s12873-024-00982-3

2. Coccolini F, Montori G, Catena F, et al. Splenic trauma: WSES classification and guidelines for adult and pediatric patients. World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2017. doi:10.1186/s13017-017-0151-4

3. Podda M, Simone BD, Ceresoli M, et al. Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively: the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document. World Journal of Emergency Surgery. 2022. doi:10.1186/s13017-022-00457-5

4. Kölbel B, Imach S, Engelhardt M, et al. Angioembolization in patients with blunt splenic trauma in Germany –guidelines vs. Reality a retrospective registry-based cohort study of the TraumaRegister DGU®. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. 2024. doi:10.1007/s00068-024-02640-6

5. Rossaint R, Bouillon B, Černý V, et al. The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition. Critical Care. 2016. doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1265-x

6. Hardcastle TC, Gaarder C, Balogh ZJ, et al. Guidelines for Enhanced Recovery After Trauma and Intensive Care (ERATIC): Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and International Association for Trauma Surgery and Intensive Care (IATSIC) Society Recommendations: Paper 2: Postoperative and Intensive Care Recommendations. World Journal of Surgery. 2025. doi:10.1002/wjs.70004