Retrospective multicenter study of injuries associated with personal mobility devices in Moscow

BACKGROUND: The use of personal mobility devices is associated with a high risk of injury, with the number of injuries increasing in direct proportion to the growing popularity of personal mobility devices and the number of trips taken. This situation necessitates research into injury patterns to enable the implementation of preventive measures and the development of unified treatment algorithms. Russian scientific sources mainly present isolated data based on small samples, which complicates analysis and systematization.

AIM: This study aimed to assess the level, distribution, and temporal changes of injuries associated with personal mobility devices in the largest Russian metropolis (Moscow); to identify trends and risk factors affecting the safety of personal mobility devices operation; and to initiate the systematization of clinical data on personal mobility device-related injuries across the Russian Federation.

METHODS: It was a multicenter, non-randomized, retrospective, anonymized study of personal mobility device-related injuries. The analysis was based on reports and medical records from patients treated in 5 outpatient and 7 inpatient facilities of the Moscow City Health Department. The study sample comprised 4678 patients aged 18–89 years, divided into two groups: the first included 3302 patients (70%) who received outpatient medical care or refused hospitalization, and the second included 1376 patients (30%) who were admitted for inpatient treatment. Methods of retrospective analysis, stratification, and statistical data processing were applied.

RESULTS: Hospitalized patients accounted for 1376 cases (30%), with a mean age of 35 years (range: 18–86). Most participants were of working age, of both sexes, with no marked gender predominance. However, hospitalized patients were significantly older than outpatients (p < 0.05). The gender distribution did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). In the group hospitalized for inpatient treatment, injuries resulting from bicycles, e-bikes, scooters, e-scooters and other personal mobility devices (rollerblades, unicycles, Segways, hoverboards), which constituted less than 1% of the overall distribution, accounted for 330 (24%), 69 (5%), 234 (17%), 660 (48%), and 83 cases, respectively. The mean length of hospital stay was 4.76 days. Among outpatients, injuries resulting from bicycles, scooters, e-scooters and other personal mobility devices (rollerblades, unicycles, Segways, hoverboards), which constituted less than 1% of the overall distribution, accounted for 765 (23%), 667 (20%), 1583 (48%), and 287 (9%) cases. Across all personal mobility devices, e-scooters ranked first in injury incidence, dominating the shared mobility market over the past five years. Falls accounted for 79% of all injuries. By the nature of the injuries, in the outpatient group, isolated injuries accounted for 2628 cases (79%), whereas multiple, combined, or associated injuries accounted for 674 (21%) cases. In inpatients, isolated injuries occurred in 1045 (76%) cases, and multiple, combined, or polytrauma injuries occurred in 331 (24%) cases.

CONCLUSION: This study analyzed personal mobility device-related injuries treated in Moscow healthcare facilities and determined the distribution of injuries by etiology, nature, and type of medical care provided. The study represents the first step toward systematizing clinical data on personal mobility device-related injuries in Russia for the subsequent development of optimal solutions for prevention and treatment.