ABSTRACT. Background. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) continue to be a source of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric population despite recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics that children <16 years old not ride in or drive ATVs. ATV injuries have increased significantly in both children and adults most years since 1997.Objective. To assess the effectiveness of ATV regulations for children on serious injuries by comparing ATVrelated admissions to level I and II trauma hospitals in a state with and a state without ATV regulations.Design. Ecologic study.Patients. Children <16 years old who died and/or were treated in the trauma system of Pennsylvania or North Carolina after ATV crashes.Outcome 4 The estimated injury rate for children Ͻ16 years old in 1 state was 3.4 per 100 registered ATVs. 5 ATV crash injuries that most commonly require medical care are orthopedic, head, and facial injuries. 6 Severe closed head injuries and paraplegia after ATV crashes have been reported. 7 Statistical models using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System estimate that helmet use for all riders might reduce the risk of death by 42% and the risk of nonfatal head injury by 64%. 8 One study examining population-based ATV fatalities found that states with no ATV safety legislation had a fatality rate of 0.17 per 100 000 persons, compared with 0.08 deaths per 100 000 persons in states with helmet and other safety requirements. 9 For these reasons, some states (including Pennsylvania) have enacted helmet laws and restricted driving or riding ATVs for children Ͻ16 years old. 9 Pennsylvania does not allow children Ͻ10 years old to ride ATVs on public lands or recreation areas and requires both a training certificate and a helmet that meets motorcycle specifications for children Ͻ16 years old. 10 Other states (including North Carolina) have no such restrictions.This study examines patterns of injury and fatalities in children Ͻ16 years old identified through the Pennsylvania Trauma Database and fatality reports for Pennsylvania from the CPSC, death certificate data, and emergency medical service (EMS) data. It compares the same data gathered in North Carolina through the North Carolina Trauma Registry and the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME). Pennsylvania and North Carolina were chosen as study sites because of the availability of their trauma registries and because Pennsylvania has long-standing ATV legislation, whereas North Carolina has no (2) describe the types of injury that cause morbidity leading to trauma-center admission or mortality among young ATV riders and drivers.ATV legislation. We attempt to 1) determine whether the pattern of injuries (place of injury, age at time of injury, and helmet use) treated by trauma centers is consistent with ATV regulations when comparing a state with and without ATV regulations and
METHODS
Experimental DesignThis study is an ecologic study using data from 2 state trauma registries (North Carolina and Pennsylvania) as well as all ATVrelated deaths in bot...