Background and objectives: Injury patterns in bicycle accidents may vary depending on patient age and mechanism of accident. We aimed to investigate characteristics of patients involved in bicycle accidents, along with mechanisms of accidents and clinical outcomes in children. Methods: Children admitted to the pediatric emergency department of a tertiary referral hospital during a four-year period due to bicycle accidents were included. The mechanism of accident was classified into two groups; high-energy trauma and low-energy trauma. Statistical analyses were performed to recognize injury patterns and clinical outcomes associated with mechanism of accident. Results: 360 children were included. 2 patients were using helmet. 29 patients required surgery. 14 patients had clinically important traumatic brain injury. 8 and 2 patients had permanent neurologic sequela and finger amputation, respectively. In high-energy trauma, significantly more commonly affected anatomical areas compared to low-energy trauma were extremities, head and neck, and multiple injuries. Abrasions/soft tissue injuries, scalp fractures, maxillofacial fractures and traumatic brain injury were also significantly more common types of injury in high-energy trauma. Conclusions: In a retrospective cohort with low rate and no obligatory regulation of helmet use, high-energy bicycle accidents can cause significant clinical outcomes, including maxillofacial and scalp fractures, traumatic brain injury, and permanent disability.

Purpose: Successful resuscitation and early defibrillation are critical in survival after in- or out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest. This study aimed to determine the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of the pediatric healthcare professionals about the defibrillator use and to offer solutions if there was room for improvement. Procedures: This was a multicenter survey study. Findings: The study included 716 healthcare professionals with an average age of 30.1 ± 5.8 years; 50% (n=358) were pediatric residents and 41.3% (n=296) had less than three years of professional experience. Self-declared level of knowledge about defibrillation/cardioversion was low-to-medium for 66.5% (n=476); 60.8% (n=435) had never practiced these procedures and 22.2% (n=159) had never received any training about defibrillator use. There was a significant relationship between professional experience and the proportion of participants who correctly responded to the first-shock dose for defibrillation but not for cardioversion. Conclusion: Professional experience is crucial in the correct defibrillator use. However, the defibrillation/cardioversion procedures are prone to errors since they are not commonly applied in day to day practice. An ideal approach to improve the experience of personnel could be to use practical training with case-based simulations and to educate the personnel about the features of the defibrillators available in their clinics.