Power Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified
Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.
Lawn & Garden Equipment · CPSC Code 1456
Down 26% over 5 years
The verdict
Power Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified carry a danger score of 34/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 1,427 ER-treated injuries a year that are declining by about 26% over the last five years.
- 34/100
- danger score (low risk)
- 1,427
- ER visits per year (avg)
- 9.3%
- end in hospital admission
- 55-64
- most-injured age group
Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 1456 - last data year 2024.
PlainSafety danger score
How this 34/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume1,427 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)9.3%
- Fatality rate0.00%
- 5-year trend-26%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Power Pruning Or Trimming Equipment, Not Specified (CPSC product code 1456, in the Lawn & Garden Equipment category) generate an estimated 1,427 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 28,542 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 34/100 for this category (low risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts are declining by about 26% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2017 (2,241 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2023 (853 estimated visits).
The single most common ER diagnosis for power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 10,324 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the hand (2,042 cases). The 55-64 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 5,368 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 9.3% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 6 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how power 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)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 243 | 0 | |
| 5-14 | 1,011 | 58 | |
| 15-24 | 1,985 | 274 | |
| 25-34 | 2,799 | 616 | |
| 35-44 | 3,579 | 910 | |
| 45-54 | 2,785 | 1,711 | |
| 55-64 | 3,656 | 1,712 | |
| 65-74 | 3,030 | 1,274 | |
| 75+ | 2,014 | 883 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Finger | Amputation | |
| Lower Arm | Laceration | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Lower Leg | Laceration | |
| Lower Trunk | Fracture | |
| Finger | Fracture | |
| Finger | Avulsion | |
| Upper Trunk | Fracture | |
| Upper Trunk | Other | |
| Wrist | Fracture | |
| Knee | Laceration |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
14 YOM WAS HELPING HIS FATHER TRIP TREES AND HAND A BRANCE FALL ON HIS LAND. DX: HAND SPRAIN, CELLULITIS OF HAND
77 YOM-TRIMMING SHRUBS AT HOME-FELL-HIT ARM & HEAD DX: SCALP & FOREARM ABRASIONS
65 YOF WAS TRIMMING HEDGES EARLIER TODAY WHEN IT SLIPPED AND CUT HER LEFT HAND. DX: LACERATION OF LEFT HAND.
35 YOM WAS DOING YARD WORK TRIMMING A BUSH WITH A MOTORIZED TOOL AND WAS HIT BY A BRANCH IN THE RIGHT EYE. DX: ABRASION OF RIGHT CORNEA.
59 YOF C/O FINGER LACERATION S/P USING AN ELECTRIC TRIMMER. DX: FINGER LACERATION
76YOM C/O RIGHT INDEX FINGER LACERATION. WAS TRIMMING THE HEDGES WHEN HE ACCIDENTLLY CUT HIS RIGHT INDEX FINGER WITH A HEDGE TREMOR. IS ON ***. DX: LACERATION OF RIGHT INDEX FINGER WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY WITHOUT DAMAGE TO NAIL
55YOM C/O LACERATION TO SECOND FINGER ON LEFT HAND FROM HOME. CUT HIS FINGER WITH HEDGE CLIPPERS. DX: LACERATION OF LEFT INDEX FINGER WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY WITH DAMAGE TO NAIL
24YOM WAS TRIMMING TREES AT HIS HOUSE WHEN A BRANCH FELL ONTO HIS HEAD DX:CLOSED HEAD INJURY, LAC SCALP
67YOM, C/O CHEST PAIN, CUT THRU POWER LIINE W/ TRIMMER DX: CHEST WALL PAIN, ELECTRICAL BURN
75YOF C/O LEFT THUMB INJURY. WAS USING A POWER PRUNING TOOL WHEN SHE CAUGHT HER LEFT THUMB. LACERATION OVER THUMB. SCANS SHOW FRACTURE OF DISTAL PHALANX OF THE LEFT THUMB. DX: OPEN FRACTURE, LACERATION OF LEFT THUMB WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY WITH DAMAGE TO NAIL
43YOM REPORTS WITH LACERATION TO FINGER WHEN USING AN ELECTRIC TRIMMER TO CUT A TREE. DX LACERATION
81YOF PT C/O RT SHOULDER PAIN AFTER TRIMMING A BRANCH ON A TREE RECENTLY DX: CERVICAL MUSCLE STRAIN
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
(8/3/13) The consumer trimmed an area that contained landscaping rocks that were 1-1/2 2 dia. Some of the rocks were being thrown against the consumer, while she was using the trimmer. Additionally, the trimmer kept re-threading itself during use. The consumer continued to use the trimmer, but adjusted her stance so that she was further away from the trimmer. The adjusted stance did not make a difference. Large chunks of thread were being spewed from the trimmer, but the line was not clipping itself consistently. She continued to use the trimmer and a large chunk of trimmer thread hit the consumers left leg twice, in succession. She received a cut on her left leg from the thread. She has 3 scars that are staggered on her leg and she does not believe that they will ever go away. She has not seen a doctor and does not plan to. (8/5/13) The consumer called the manufacturer and shared her concerns with them. Their rep. asked the consumer what she would like and indicated that they could replace the trimmer or give her a refund. The consumer was told that a refund could take several weeks, so she opted for a replacement trimmer. The mfr. sent the consumer and identical model trimmer and she returned the older trimmer back to them, at their expense. The consumer also sent the additional spool of thread that she initially purchased to the mfr. along with the trimmer. The consumer was later told that the manufacturer could not test the trimmer using the original spool of thread that she included. It is not known why they could not use it. The consumer noted that she has scars on both legs from where the rocks and gravel hit her. The consumer has a firm file: [REDACTED] associated with the report that she filed with the mfr.
Caller stated that the trimmer while in operation the bottom (plastic plate that is used for the strings) broke off and became a projectile. He stated that he was hit in on the right leg with the object and he received a minor bruise. No medical attention was received. The Part#3410176A-1. (7/13) He contacted the retailer and he was referred to the manufacturer which he was then transferred through 5 different departments but no one was unable to assist him. Caller stated that he feels that this trimmer is a safety hazard and should be reported. The submitter added he found out theirs is an updated part. The submitter also noted he has "somewhere" in his house the two broken pieces that attach to the area where the spool goes in.
I have a Toro 18" gas trimmer and the rubber stopper on the gas tank that is the fuel line and primer, leaks terribly. Called Toro, and while it's not under a recall, its very dangerous, and I can no longer use the trimmer. Called Toro to see if I can get a replacement (under warranty). They recommended checking their website. They do not offer replacement gas tanks for this trimmer online. Checked with a Toro dealer, and they don't carry parts. I guess this is a throw away machine. Sad because of the money I paid for it. However, it is unsafe, and I'm sure other homeowners face the possibility of a leaking tank as well...fire hazard.
I purchased a Troy Built TB2044XP gas trimmer and the plastic shroud that covers the top of the engine gave me a substantial 2nd degree burn. The burn measures 1" X 2" and it's about 4" above my elbow on the inside of my right forearm. Used the trimmer for about an hour on out 1 acre lot trimming our ditch that surround about 2/3 of out property. The burn is an open wound and I'm treating it to mitigate the possibility of infection, I'm very frustrated about this. It seems the exhaust is on top of the engine under the plastic cover, something needs to be done to fix this issue.
PROBLEM: Shaft retention safety collar screw on shaft of Ryobi power head model#RY15122 inadequate for retention of attachments. STORY: While operating above with approved 10" Ryobi polesaw attachment model#RY15520, threads on junk metal (looks like zinc coated die cast ?) shaft collar retaining bolt stripped and allowed for polesaw head to not only to twist from lock position but to dislodge and be torque launched from the locked position on unit and was a near miss to myself on its way back to the ground from a point in height of about 10 feet. Additionally, the screw was not the only failure here, as the pop button used to guide and keep attachments from rotating in powerhead shaft coupling while equipment is in operation also failed to retain attachment/stop attachment rotation, though I am certain this is if only a secondary safety assistance device. The head of polesaw attachment is undeniably similar in design, and functionality, and relative use, and relative danger, as to a chainsaw. If the same would have happened with the high torque tiller head from the same product line, (another interchangeable attachment i own as well for this power head unit), I could almost certainly be missing a foot, or leg, or worse, as the torque generated by the transmission is immense in comparison. What makes this situation worse is that the Home Depot, where this was purchased, does not offer or carry a replacement part in store or online, nor were either of the 2 Home Depot stores I visited willing to even offer a replacement item, even though in one store a like/type would have been available from display stock (im looking for a 3 inch screw, not the whole piece of equipment and i explained such clearly and with sample in hand). The Home Depot is claiming that since the powerhead and its attachments were purchased beyond 30 days (I purchased these as well as 3 other attachments approximately a year ago, all are still operable) that the entire unit assembly with an odd, o
Caller stated that his spouse found acid leaking from the shear and he returned it to the store (9/2013), he received a replacement and while he was charging it for 24 hours the same incident occurred. The acid that had leaked was on his garage shelf and on the floor. He contacted the manufacturer and they informed him that they were not aware of any incident with the product and would not offer any assistance. He has since returned the product to the retailer. Caller feels that this is a safety hazard and can cause harm to consumers. The product is not affected by a recall.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified on the CPSC website.
Frequently Asked Questions
How dangerous are power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?
Based on 20 years of CPSC data, power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified have a danger score of 34/100 (low risk). An estimated 1,427 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.
What are the most common injuries from power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?
The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 10,324 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified increasing or decreasing?
Down 26% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified injuries?
The 55-64 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 5,368 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified?
Of all ER visits involving power pruning or trimming equipment, not specified, approximately 9.3% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (90.7%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with power 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.
Related Products in Lawn & Garden Equipment
Safety Guides
What this means for you
Treat the 34/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.
- See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
- Injuries cluster in the 55-64 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
- Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls
NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.
Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.