Do All-terrain or Recreational Off-highway Vehicle Crashes Have a Higher Odds of Amputation?

Abstract Background Riding off-road vehicles is associated with the risk of injury to the extremities. There are two main types of four-wheel recreational off-road vehicles: quads or all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), which are essentially four-wheel off-road motorcycles, and recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs), also colloquially referred to as utility terrain vehicles, which have side-by-side seating, higher maximum speeds, and a roll cage. There are multiple orthopaedic society position statements on ATVs, but none on ROVs. Perhaps this is because the injury patterns and differences between the two vehicles have not been elucidated. Questions/purposes (1) What patient, vehicle (ROVs versus ATVs), and injury factors are associated with amputation? (2) What are the anatomic location distributions of fractures and amputations by vehicle type? Methods Records of all patients in our hospital’s billing system who had both a diagnostic code indicating an accident related to an off-road vehicle and one indicating an extremity or pelvic fracture between February 2014 and January 2020 were screened; this resulted in the identification of 328 patients with fractures resulting from off-road vehicle collisions. A total of 16% (51 of 328) of patients were excluded from the analysis because their injury did not involve either an ATV or an ROV; 277 patients were included in the final analysis. The following variables were collected: age at time of the injury, gender, BMI, vehicle type, Gustilo-Anderson type if applicable, amputation level if applicable, anatomic locations of injuries, ethanol level, and drug screen. ATV crashes accounted for 52% (145 of 277) of patients, and ROV crashes accounted for 48% (132 of 277). Patients from ATV crashes did not differ from those in ROV crashes in terms of mean age (24 ± 16 years versus 24 ± 13 years; p = 0.82), BMI (25 ± 7 kg/m2 versus 26 ± 6 kg/m2; p = 0.18), or gender (79% [114 of 145] men/boys versus 77% [102 of 132]; p = 0.79). Among patients who had a drug or ethanol screen, there was a higher percent of ATV riders who used marijuana (39% [19 of 49] versus 17% [7 of 42]; p = 0.04), but there were no differences in abnormal blood alcohol screen or abnormal nonmarijuana drug screen; however, these results were available in only about one-third of patients (99 of 277 for ethanol and 91 of 277 for drug screen). Statistical analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis for factors associated with amputation, with p values < 0.05 considered significant. Results After controlling for differences in demographic factors, the stepwise increase in Gustilo-Anderson grade of open fracture (OR 9.8 [95% CI 3.6 to 27.0]; p < 0.001) and ROV vehicle type (OR 15.7 [95% CI 3.6 to 68.5]; p < 0.001) were both associated with amputation. There was no increase in the odds of amputation associated with age (OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.9 to 1.1]; p = 0.81), gender (OR 1.4 [95% CI 0.3 to 5.8]; p = 0.68), or BMI (OR 1.1 [95% CI 0.9 to 1.2]; p = 0.37). The most frequent ATV fractures occurred in the forearm and wrist (22% [45 of 203]), whereas most ROV injuries occurred through the metacarpals (41% [107 of 262] of fractures and 58% [18 of 31] of amputations). Conclusion ROV crashes are associated with a higher odds of amputation when compared with ATV crashes. Because most ROV injuries were in the forearm and below, this likely occurs when upper extremities are crushed and mangled under the roll cage in rollover ROV crashes. Because of this danger, we urge our orthopaedic societies to either update current ATV position statements to include ROVs or release separate statements on ROVs. Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study.