cervical injuries and blunt trauma icms
TRANSCRIPT
Cervical Injuries and Blunt Trauma
Patrick Lynch
Cervical fractures sustained in a MVA are responsible for 60% of reported cases of SCI (Ref 6,7,1,8,9).
Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report
Since 2005, motor vehicle crashes account for 41.3% of reported SCI cases
The National SCI Statistical Center
Spinal fractures in drivers of open cockpit open wheel race cars were studied during the interval 1996 - 2005 in five racing series. There were 44 levels of fracture in 38 occurrences of fracture in 36 drivers. There were 3 injuries at the OC level, and 12 C3 - C7. Therefore the cervical fractures represented 34.1% of the spinal fractures, which is consistent with that present in MVA's.
Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report
The rescuer who removes a helmet improperly may unintentionally aggravate cervical spine injuries
American College of Surgeons
In the presence of an unstable distractive injury to the basiocciput there is a high probability that the application of traction to the head could result in worsening of the injury and or neurological status…
…Anecdotal data has shown that 5# of traction can result in catastrophic neurological deterioration of such an injury.
Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report
Cervical Injuries in motorsport continue to be a major concern for medical personnel. It is a topic of continuous debate because trauma rescuers struggle in an environment of limited data and incomplete answers to offer the best care to minimize the risk of additional neurologic injury.
Dr Dino Altmann
American College of Surgeons Helmet Removal Technique
Helmet Removal Digital x-Ray
Eject Helmet Removal Digital x-Ray
Mayo Clinic Eject Study Biomechanics Lab
GOAL: Assess the effect of helmet removal on the neck using the Eject system versus standard, manual
removal
3-D Scan
Milled headform, multiple sensors fitted
• METHOD: A model of the head was created to replace a live subject with forces
and torques on the head and neck were measured simultaneously
• Helmets were properly fit to live subjects to ensure correct fitting
• 3 dimensional computer models of the subjects heads were created
• The 3-D scans were converted into CNC milled wood replica heads
• A biomechanical neck was connected to head to replicate normal flex
• A six-component load cell was mounted to base of neck/model head
• Traction & compression forces were measured at the neck for data
Mayo Clinic Eject Study
Neck/Head form testing with six-component load cell for force data collection
Left/Right Front/Back Traction Left/Right Front/Back Traction Nodding Tilting Traction
1 61.37 -6.11 62.37 -3.06 -10.21 99.75 -35.25 7.62 5.01
2 19.65 5.80 49.76 -3.68 -7.66 67.56 -27.26 9.73 9.26
3 61.46 17.62 35.60 -4.45 -6.23 70.75 25.50 13.83 10.73
4 29.28 20.22 71.04 -8.37 -12.18 72.07 -42.42 28.88 -8.99
5 39.34 10.26 57.72 -4.71 -8.63 78.79 -29.88 14.22 7.52
6 24.64 12.51 51.86 -2.86 -9.95 66.09 -34.46 8.70 9.21
Avg 39.291 10.052 54.725 -4.523 -9.145 75.836 -23.961 13.830 5.456
Std Dev 18.329 9.445 12.100 2.023 2.097 12.522 24.784 7.854 7.343
1 9.27 -17.06 -42.35 0.92 4.31 -3.17 21.89 4.99 -6.65
2 40.71 16.51 -40.15 0.28 3.91 1.51 13.24 1.52 3.06
3 11.71 -13.86 -37.43 0.22 3.40 1.73 10.12 2.89 2.40
4 12.04 -10.27 -33.28 -0.27 2.87 1.01 12.74 1.64 5.06
5 43.53 25.06 -38.29 0.37 3.11 1.20 10.21 4.57 -5.56
6 23.81 -15.32 -39.78 0.38 3.45 -1.59 14.20 2.96 -2.17
Avg 23.512 -2.490 -38.546 0.316 3.507 0.117 13.733 3.096 -0.645
Std Dev 15.298 18.366 3.087 0.380 0.525 2.013 4.323 1.444 4.861
1 18.36 -23.39 -39.58 1.61 3.09 5.67 12.08 -4.90 5.73
2 47.91 19.50 -41.20 0.21 3.38 2.95 13.37 2.53 3.48
3 14.09 -15.62 -38.22 -0.19 2.45 4.26 7.09 2.27 3.89
4 34.85 -18.75 -40.15 0.36 2.67 5.16 9.53 2.37 -2.80
5 14.42 -26.32 -34.54 -0.40 -2.38 -3.87 6.61 4.25 6.71
6 38.53 -15.97 -43.96 0.33 2.12 -4.17 8.45 2.71 3.40
Avg 28.024 -13.422 -39.608 0.319 1.890 1.667 9.521 1.538 3.402
Std Dev 14.318 16.668 3.143 0.699 2.139 4.502 2.718 3.235 3.320
Figure 7 Figures 5 &6
Eje
ct
Syste
m®
Han
d P
um
p
Maximum
Medium Motor Cross Helmet
Man
ual
Rem
oval
Neck Torques (in-lb)E
ject
Syste
m®
16g
CO
2 C
art
rid
ge
Neck Forces (lb)Condition Trial
Head Forces (lb)
Mayo Clinic Lab Results
• Test data collected and analyzed
• Traction & compression forces identified
Motocross Helmet -
Traction/Compressive Forces at Neck during Removal
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Fo
rce
at
Ne
ck
(lb
)
Manual Removal Eject w ith 16g CO2
Mayo Clinic Lab Results
The positive values on this graph represent traction forces. The negative values represent compression. This illustrates that the traction forces at the neck increase progressively to a peak and then decrease at a similar rate during manual removal while traction forces remain minimal during removal using the Eject® System.
Maximum Traction/Compression Forces - Time
Mayo Clinic Lab Results
The positive values on this graph represent traction forces. The negative values represent compression. This illustrates that the traction forces at the neck increase progressively to a peak and then decrease at a similar rate during manual removal while traction forces remain minimal during removal using the Eject® System.
Maximum Traction/Compression Forces
Auto Racing Helmet-
Maximum Traction/Compressive Forces on Neck
0
50
100
150
200
250
Fo
rce
(N)
Manual Removal Eject with 16g Cartridge
Thank You
Patrick Lynch
Motorsport Director
Shock Doctor
Tel: +1 612 810 5330
Email: [email protected]