Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 18;4(2):e20.00009.
doi: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-20-00009. eCollection 2020 Feb.

Demographics and Fracture Patterns of Patients Presenting to US Emergency Departments for Intimate Partner Violence

Randall T Loder  1 , Luke Momper  1
Affiliations

Demographics and Fracture Patterns of Patients Presenting to US Emergency Departments for Intimate Partner Violence

Randall T Loder et al. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. .

Abstract

Orthopaedic surgeons are in a position to assist in identifying intimate partner violence (IPV) patients. It was the purpose of this study to analyze the demographics and fracture patterns of IPV patients in the United States.

Methods: Data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program from 2005 through 2013 were used. Injuries due to domestic violence were identified, and statistical analyses accounted for the weighted, stratified nature of the data.

Results: There were 1.65 million emergency department visits over nine years for IPV. The median age was 29.8 years, 83.3% were women, and 55.3% occurred at home. The major diagnoses were contusion/abrasions (43.4%), lacerations (16.9%), strain/sprains (15.6%), internal organ injuries (14.4%), and fractures (9.7%). The most common fracture involved the face (48.3%), followed by the finger (9.9%), upper trunk (9.8%), and hand (6.4%). The highest proportion of lower extremity fractures occurred in men, and upper extremity fractures increased with increasing age. The odds of fracture in an IPV patient were greatest in those sustaining an upper extremity injury (odds ratio [OR] = 6.62), lower extremity injury (OR = 6.51), upper trunk injury (4.28), and head/neck injury (OR = 3.08) compared with a lower trunk injury (referent), and women (OR = 1.80) compared with men (referent). Older patients sustaining IPV had higher odds of a fracture (the few patients 10-14 and >65 years old were excluded from this analysis).

Conclusions: As this study encompasses the entire United States, these results are germane to all US orthopaedic surgeons. Knowing typical fracture patterns/locations is helpful in identifying IPV patients, although the victim may not fully divulge the history and details of the event. Identification is important for the physical and mental health of the victim, and abuse often continues if intervention does not occur. The odds of a fracture in an IPV patient are greatest when the injury involved the extremities and increased with increasing age of the patient.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Differences by race and age group (P < 10−4) in IPV patients. The number of patients is shown in the column boxes. IPV = intimate partner violence.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Differences by diagnosis in IPV patients. The number of patients is shown in the column boxes. CTAB = contusion/abrasion, FX = fracture, LAC = laceration, IOJ = internal organ injury, STSP = strain/sprain. A, By sex (P < 10−4). B, By hospital disposition (P < 10−4). IPV = intimate partner violence.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Differences in fracture location in IPV patients. The number of patients is shown in the column boxes. A, By sex (P = 0.0032). B, By age group (P < 10−4). C, By race (P = 0.044). IPV = intimate partner violence.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Temporal variation in IPV ED visits. A, By month. The differences between the sexual and nonsexual assault IPV patients were highly significant (P < 10−4). B, By weekday. There were no notable differences between the sexual and nonsexual assault IPV patients. ED = emergency department, IPV = intimate partner violence.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HA, Ellsberg M, et al. : Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. Lancet 2006;368:1260-8. - PubMed
    1. Kyriacou DN, Anglin D, Taliaferro E, et al. : Risk factors for injury to women from domestic violence. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1892-8. - PubMed
    1. Della Rocca GJ, Tornetta P, III, Schneider PS, Sprague S: Intimate partner violence and orthopaedics. AOA critical issues. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:e62. - PubMed
    1. Bhandari M, Sprague S, Dosanjh S, et al. : The prevalence of intimate partner violence across orthopaedic fracture clinics in Ontario. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:132-41. - PubMed
    1. Downie S, Madden K, Bhandari M, Jariwala A: A prospective questionnaire-based study on staff awareness of intimate partner violence (IPV) in orthopaedic trauma patients. Surgeon 2019;17:207-14. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources