BACKGROUND: Micromobility-related injuries increasingly contribute to trauma care, but differences in injury patterns and resource use across bicycle, e-bike, and e-scooter injuries remain incompletely characterized. We compared injury severity, injury patterns, and resource use among injured riders presenting to participating trauma centers. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the American College of Surgeons National Trauma Data Bank (2023-2024) for injured bicycle, e-bike, and e-scooter riders ≥18 years. The primary outcome was severe injury (Injury Severity Score ≥16). Secondary outcomes included serious regional injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3), craniofacial fractures, operative and critical care resource use, and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 47,102 injured riders, 32,100 (68%) rode bicycles, 8,744 (19%) e-bikes, and 6,258 (13%) e-scooters. Compared with bicycle riders, e-scooter riders had lower risk of severe injury (aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87-0.99) but higher risk of serious head/neck injury (aRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.17). Risks of serious chest (aRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.82) and extremities/pelvic girdle injuries (aRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.99), emergency surgery (aRR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87), early transfusion (aRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.94), and in-hospital mortality (aRR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94) were lower. Helmet use was associated with lower craniofacial fracture risk, most strongly among e-scooter riders (aRR 0.49, 95% CI 0.41-0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Among injured riders presenting to participating trauma centers, e-scooter injuries were associated with lower overall severity and resource use than bicycle injuries but greater serious head/neck injury risk. Helmet use was associated with lower craniofacial fracture risk, supporting continued helmet promotion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abbasi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: