CPSC NEISS · code 1455

Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified

Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified: danger rank #419 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #490 of 838 (1,312 estimated ER visits a year; rising by about 17% over the last five years).

Lawn & Garden Equipment CPSC NEISS through 2024

Danger score versus ER volume

Danger score versus ER volume

According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified ranks #419 of 838 by danger score (35/100) at ER-volume #490 of 838 (1,312/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#419
danger rank of 838
#490
ER-volume rank of 838
35/100
danger score
1,312/yr
estimated ER visits (avg)

Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.

Where this category's danger score sits nationally

Danger score (35/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

35 Lower than most lower than 50% of 838 product categories

scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value

Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.

Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024

Composite verdict

Composite Safety Score: 50/100

One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.

C
Dimension Value National percentile Weight applied Source
Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) 6 52nd 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 1,312 38th 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend +17% 80th 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 8 43rd 20% CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count

Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.

Where 26,251 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1455. Segments sum to 26,251 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.

Two danger lenses

Same-group peer scores and this product's dial

The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Lawn & Garden Equipment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.

Lawn & Garden Equipment danger scores

1. Lawn Mowers, Not Specified47/1002. Riding Power Lawn Mowers44/1003. Manual Snow Or Ice Remova…44/1004. Snow Throwers, Blowers44/1005. Decorative Yard Equipment…43/1006. Garden Hoses, Nozzles Or …42/1007. Pruning Or Trimming Equip…41/1008. Manual Pruning Or Trimmin…35/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10035/100
PlainSafety danger score · Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 35/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume 1,312 ER visits/yr Below median volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 6.1% Above median admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
  • 5-year trend+17%

Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.

What the CPSC Data Shows

Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified are rising by about 17% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2006 (1,791 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2013 (848 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 10,099 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the hand (1,847 cases). The 55-64 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 5,285 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 6.1% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 8 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.

Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)

5001K2K2K 20052008201120142017202020232024 2K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2024

Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 20 27 47
5-14 733 376 1,109
15-24 1,222 211 1,433
25-34 1,464 792 2,256
35-44 1,668 1,538 3,206
45-54 3,073 1,719 4,792
55-64 2,830 2,455 5,285
65-74 2,474 1,718 4,192
75+ 1,725 2,204 3,929

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
Finger Laceration 10,099
Hand Laceration 1,847
Finger Avulsion 1,102
Foot Laceration 916
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 783
Lower Leg Laceration 642
Upper Trunk Other 564
Finger Amputation 500
Head Internal Injury 491
Toe Laceration 449
Ankle Laceration 414
Wrist Fracture 374
Upper Trunk Fracture 366
Shoulder Other 313
Wrist Strain, Sprain 307

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 92.7% (24,344)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 4.7% (1,240)
Treated And Transferred 1.6% (411)
Left Without Being Seen 1.0% (256)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 6 · Male · Toe · Laceration · 2024

6YOM FOR EVAL OF SKIN LAC. HE WAS PLAYING WITH GARDENING SHEARS PTA & ACCIDENTALLY DROPPED THEM ONTO HIS R FOOT. OCCRRED ABOUT 2 HRS PTA. AFTER HE DID THIS HE OBTAINED A *** ON HIS OWN & COVERED UP THE WOUND. IT WASN'T UNTIL HIS MOTHER IDENTIFIED THE LESION THAT HE TOLD HER WHAT HAPPENED. INJURED R GREAT TOE. OCCURRED AT HOME. DX: SKIN LACERATION

Age 52 · Male · Finger · Laceration · 2024

52YOM WAS WORKING ON HIS YARD AND CUT HIMSELF ON SOME HEDGE TRIMMERS. DX: FINGER LACERATION.

Age 66 · Male · Not Stated/unk · Other · 2024

66YOM, FELL IN YARD CUTTING BUSHES, C/O CHEST PAIN, SOB DX: ACUTE DYSPNEA, HEAT ILLNESS

Age 43 · Female · Head · Concussion · 2024

43YOF WAS TRIMMING TREES WITH HER HUSBAND AND ONE OF THE BRANCHES FELL ON HER HEAD DX: CONCUSSION

Age 65 · Male · Finger · Laceration · 2024

65YOM REPORTS WITH LACERATION TO FINGER WHEN HE WAS USING GARDENING SHEARS AND ACCIDENTALLY CLIPPED HIS FINGER. DX LACERATION TO FINGER.

Age 59 · Female · Lower Arm · Laceration · 2024

59YOF WAS USING A PAIR OF MANUAL HEDGE TRIMMERS WHEN SHE CUT HER LEFT FOREARM DX:LAC FOREARM

Age 53 · Female · Lower Trunk · Puncture · 2024

53YOF PT ACCIDENTALLY TRIPPED WITH GARDEN SHEARS, STABBED SELF IN ABDOMEN DX: PUNCTURE WOUND OF ABDOMEN

Age 68 · Female · Finger · Laceration · 2024

68YOF C/O LACEARTION S/P PT STATES SHE WAS USING HEDGE CLIPPERS AND GOT HER FINGER CAUGHT. DX: LACEARTION OF LEFT INDEX FINGER

Age 31 · Male · Finger · Laceration · 2024

31YOM C/O HAND LACERATION S/P PT STATES HE WAS CUTTING THE BUSHES THIS EVENING AND CUT HIS FINGER ON THE GARDENING SHEARS. DX: LACEARTION OF LEFT MIDDLE FINGER

Age 63 · Male · Eyeball · Foreign Body · 2024

63YOM WAS CUTTING HIS GRASS WHEN HE GOT SOMETHING IN HIS RIGHT EYE DX: FOREIGN BODY EYE

Age 43 · Male · Upper Leg · Laceration · 2024

43YOM, WAS WORKING IN THE GARDEN WHEN ACCIDENTALLY SLIPPED AND FELL ONTO A PAIR OF GARDEN SHEARS, NO LOC OR THINNERS, DX: LACERATION OF RIGHT THIGH

Age 70 · Female · Upper Trunk · Other · 2024

70YOF WITH CHEST PAIN THINKS IT MAY BE FROM TRIMMING HEDGES DX: CHEST PAIN

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

6/27/2020 · Incident, No Injury · FISKARS · Tennessee

I was using my Loppers when all of a sudden the handle breaks off causing me to fall over into a tangle of thorns and brush. I went online to look for a replacement pair and saw where there was a recall on this product.

5/17/2021 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · Harbor Freight Tools · Florida

I was using lopping sheers and the handle came off when closing causing it to crush my finger. It appears that the handles are not well attached and can easily cause injury. They were purchased at Harbor Freight and are listed as "Long Reach ratcheting Bypass lopper".

5/16/2016 · Incident, No Injury · Acme United Corporation · California

I purchased a Scotts 18879 Lopping Shear about 1 month ago. I used it less than 100 times on materials within its size and type of material range as shown by the manufacturer: "Branches less than 2 inches in diameter". On the last use the steel lopping tab broke off and whizzed past my ear. It missed my eyes by less than 6 inches. If it had hit my eye I would have probably been blinded in that eye. There was no unusual force or twisting that was ever used on the lopping shear. On examination the broken area on the lopping shear showed very heavy "crystallization and snapped off cleanly. I am an engineer and to me this is a clear indication of bad heat treating. The lopping tab itself is also very small and thin. This is a very unsafe product and could easily have caused me a serious injury.

4/3/2021 · Incident, No Injury · FISKARS · Utah

when I using a Fiskars tree pruner purchased at Walmart pruning an apple tree, both of the wing nuts that would hold the saw blade came loose and fell off. If I had the saw blade attached it may have fallen off and could have hurt someone. the bolt that was being held by the wing nut also came loose and the blade that is held in place by said bolt fell out of its slot (it is attached to a rope so it did not fall) and the ball barring that goes between the blade and the spring was sprung out of its track an flew off.

11/5/2022 · Incident, No Injury · FISKARS · New York

Handle Broke.

10/30/2023 · Incident, No Injury · FISKARS · Wisconsin

7/15/2023: The spring-loaded mechanism, which holds the shears together detached from the product completely. There were no injuries. However, the product has to be manually operated as a result of this, which could present an injury hazard. The consumer filled out their warranty form and called numerous numbers for the company. No one has ever responded to the calls or information that he submitted.

10/20/2021 · Injury, No First Aid or Medical Attention Received · FISKARS · Texas

Fiskars pruners. Purchased 2021 from Lowes. Product fall apart. You can't use these pruners efficiently because the 'non-slip' (they point this out on their site) grips ironically slide right down and off of the handle. You have to stop what you are doing and slide it back on. Not a good product, and potentially a safety hazard. If the grip falls off, or slips down, you could cut a finger off, or cut yourself. Yesterday when it slipped, I ended up losing grip while cutting a limb and it's handle pinched the palm of my hand leaving a cut. This is the 2nd pair I have purchased in the last 20 years probably, I threw out the first pair after struggling with it's handle falling off as well but I attributed it to being old. This new pair does the exact same thing. On their website, it reads, 'This reliable pruner is ideal for a variety of general pruning tasks. A fully hardened, precision-ground steel blade stays sharp longer, and a rust-resistant, low-friction coating makes cutting easier. A self-cleaning sap groove keeps the blades from sticking, and the handle includes non-slip grips. All-steel construction provides long-lasting durability.'

10/20/2020 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · FISKARS · California

Fiskars® 32-Inch Bypass Lopper Shears injury: I was cutting a branch about 1 3/4 inches thick. Handle snapped where metal handle joins the plastic ratchet for the lopper blade. The handle broke with such force that the broken handle recoiled and hit me in the forehead resulting in a bump and small laceration. I noticed this product had a recall in 2014. I think I may have purchased the product around that time. I've had them for years. Model 6954 03-012155

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified on the CPSC website.

Compare beyond Lawn & Garden Equipment

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified: cross-group products nearest on danger score (35/100), estimated annual ER visits (1,312/yr), and hospitalization share (6.1%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.

Read with this product

About this data

CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.

According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified ranks #419 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #490 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified ranks #419 by PlainSafety danger score (35/100) and #490 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (1,312/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

What are the most common injuries from manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?

The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 10,099 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified increasing or decreasing?

Up 17% over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified injuries?

The 55-64 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 5,285 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?

Of all ER visits involving manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified, approximately 6.1% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (93.9%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with manual pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?

You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.

Data on Manual Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified is compiled directly from CPSC NEISS and SaferProducts.gov records, current through 2024. See our methodology for details.

Disclaimer: This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.

PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.