Maxillofacial Fractures in Electric and Conventional Bicycle-Related Accidents.

PURPOSE: With the increased use of both e-bike and conventional bicycle, the number of bicycle-related accidents has increased accordingly. To determine whether there are differences in maxillofacial injuries between these 2 types of bicycle accidents, e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents were compared.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted for all the consecutive patients with maxillofacial injury due to e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents attending the emergency department of 4 hospitals in the Netherlands between May 2018 and October 2019. Primary outcomes are maxillofacial fractures present or absent and the severity of maxillofacial injury using the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and Facial Injury Severity Scale (FISS) after e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess differences in risk between an e-bike and conventional bicycle accident, where age, alcohol use, and comorbidities were added as covariates, for maxillofacial fractures, dental injury, and severe maxillofacial fractures.

RESULTS

In total, 311 patients were included (73 e-bikers and 238 conventional cyclists). Sex distribution was equal in both groups (45% male vs 55% female). The e-bike group was older (66 vs 53 median age in years, P < .001) and had more comorbidities (0 vs 1, P < .001), while alcohol use was higher in the conventional bicycle group (32% vs 16%, P = .008). e-Bikers sustained midfacial fractures more frequently (47% vs 34%, P = .04), whereas conventional cyclists more often had mandibular fractures (1% vs 11%, P = .01). Although median Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale and FISS scores did not differ between e-bike and conventional bicycle accidents, severe maxillofacial fractures (FISS score ≥ 2) were observed more often in the conventional cyclists (45% vs 25%, P = .04). No significant differences in risk of midfacial, mandibular, and severe maxillofacial fractures were found between e-bikers and conventional cyclists irrespective of their age, alcohol use, and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Both the distribution and the severe maxillofacial fractures differed between the e-bike and conventional bicycle accident patients. Patient-specific characteristics, such as age, alcohol use, and comorbidities, may have a greater influence on sustaining maxillofacial fractures than the type of bicycle ridden.