Border-fence falls versus domestic falls at a South Texas trauma center.

Objectives: Falling from height may lead to significant injuries and time hospitalized; however, there are few studies comparing the specific mechanism of fall. The purpose of this study was to compare injuries from falls after attempting to cross the USA-Mexico border fence (intentional) with injuries from domestic falls (unintentional) of comparable height.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included all patients admitted after a fall from a height of 15-30 ft to a level II trauma center between April 2014 and November 2019. Patient characteristics were compared by falls from the border fence with those who fell domestically. Fisher's exact test, χ test and Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test were used as appropriate. A significance level of α<0.05 was used.

Results: Of the 124 patients included, 64 (52%) were falls from the border fence while 60 (48%) were domestic falls. Patients sustaining injuries from border falls were on average younger than patients who had domestic falls (32.6 (10) vs 40.0 (16), p=0.002), more likely males (58% vs 41%, p<0.001), fell from a significantly higher distance (20 (20-25) vs 16.5 (15-25), p<0.001), and had a significantly lower median injury severity score (ISS) (5 (4-10) vs 9 (5-16.5), p=0.001). Additionally, compared with domestic falls, border falls had fewer injuries to the head (3% vs 25%, p=0.004) and chest (5% vs 27%, p=0.007), yet more extremity injuries (73% vs 42%, p=0.003), and less had an intensive care unit (ICU) stay (30% vs 63%, p=0.002). No significant differences in mortality were found.

Conclusion: Patients sustaining injuries from border crossing falls were slightly younger, and although fell from higher, had a lower ISS, more extremity injuries, and fewer were admitted to the ICU compared with patients sustaining falls domestically. There was no difference in mortality between groups.

Level Of Evidence: Level III, retrospective study.