PubMed · 16422381
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J Pou. Coding systems changes and the implications for the trauma registry.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043860-200108010-00005
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
AIM: Crash mechanisms, injury patterns, and severity of injury of entrapped motor vehicle occupants were analysed by the Accident Research Unit's scientific teams between 1983 and 2003. RESULTS: Of the 1281 vehicle passenger entrapments in our study, 18.3% happened on highways, 25.6% on federal roads, 35.9% on country roads, and 18.3% on city roads. Of those involved, 69.9% were drivers, 19.4% were front passengers, and 8.5% were rear passengers. Coinvolved objects in car collisions were: other cars 30.9%, trucks 50.2%, objects 18.6%, and motorbikes 0.3%. Coinvolved objects in truck collisions were: other trucks 61.8% and objects 38.2%. The mean Delta-V was 42 km/h (cars 46.2, trucks 32.2). Maximum AIS levels were 31% I, 25.2% II, 19.4% III, 7.8% IV, 7.8% V, and 8.6% VI. Of injuries, 68.7% were to the head, 23.5% to the neck, 50.8% to the chest, 43.6% to upper extremities, 15.4% to the abdomen, 16.4% to the pelvis, and 52.9% to lower extremities. The incidence of multiple injuries (ISS>16) was 23.7%, and mortality was 15.9%. CONCLUSION: Car drivers are more at risk of accidents with entrapment on rural streets, and truck drivers are more at risk on highways. In most cases car occupants crash with trucks or other cars, and truck drivers collide more frequently with other trucks or objects. Besides a high degree of severe single injuries, there is also a high incidence of multiple injury victims and high mortality. Of the fatalities, 74.5% occur during the preclinical course and 24.5% during the clinical course.
To determine and to quantify outcome from injury demands that multiple factors be universally applied so that there is uniform understanding that the same outcome is understood for the same injury. It is thus important to define the variables used in any outcome assessment. Critical to defining outcomes is the need for a universal language that defines individual injuries. The abbreviated injury scale (AIS) is the only dictionary specifically designed as a system to define the severity of injuries throughout the body. In addition to a universal injury language, it provides measures of injury severity that can be used to stratify and classify injury severity in all body regions. Its revision, AIS 2005 will be discussed here.
Neck injury remains a major issue in road safety. Current side impact dummies and side impact crashworthiness assessments do not assess the risk of neck injury. These assessments are limited by biofidelity and knowledge regarding neck injury criteria and tolerance levels in side impacts. Side impact tests with PMHS were performed at the Heidelberg University in the 1980s and 1990s to improve primarily the understanding of trunk dynamics, injury mechanisms and criteria. In order to contribute to the definition of human tolerances at neck level, this study presents an analysis of the head/neck biomechanical parameters that were measured in these tests and their relationship to neck injury severity. Data from 15 impact tests were analysed. Head accelerations, and neck forces and moments were calculated from 9-accelerometer array head data, X-rays and anthropometric data. Statistically significant relationships were observed between resultant head acceleration and neck force and neck injury severity. The average resultant head acceleration for AIS 2 neck injuries was 112 g, while resultant neck force was 4925 N and moment 241 Nm. The data compared well to other test data on cadavers and volunteers. It is hoped that the paper will assist in the understanding of neck injuries and the development of tolerance criteria.