Southwestern Surgical CongressPediatric trauma system models: do systems using adult trauma surgeons exclusively compare favorably with those using pediatric surgeons after initial resuscitation with an adult trauma surgeon?

•Comparison was made of trauma systems using pediatric (C1) and adult surgeons (C2).•Both centers use adult surgeons initially for resuscitation.•In C1, care is handed off to a pediatric surgery service for continued care.•In C1, patients were more injured, with longer length of stay.•The type of service model was not associated with mortality risk.•Adult surgeons may help alleviate shortages in pediatric surgeon coverage.

BackgroundA shortage of pediatric surgeons exists. The purpose of this study was to evaluate pediatric outcomes using pediatric surgeons vs adult trauma surgeons.MethodsA review was conducted at 2 level II pediatric trauma centers. Center I provides 24-hour in-house trauma surgeons for resuscitations, with patient hand-off to a pediatric surgery service. Center II provides 24-hour in-house senior surgical resident coverage with an on-call trauma surgeon. Data on demographics, resource utilization, and outcomes were collected.ResultsCenter I patients were more severely injured (injury severity score = 8.3 vs 6.2; Glasgow coma scale score = 13.7 vs 14.3). Center I patients were more often admitted to the intensive care unit (52.2% vs 33.5%) and more often mechanically ventilated (12.9% vs 7.7%), with longer hospital length of stay (2.8 vs 2.3 days). However, mortality was not different between Center I and II (3.1% vs 2.4%). By logistic regression analyses, the only variables predictive of mortality were injury severity score and Glasgow coma scale score.ConclusionAs it appears that trauma surgeons' outcomes compare favorably with those of pediatric surgeons, utilizing adult trauma surgeons may help alleviate shortages in pediatric surgeon coverage.