Head Injuries to Restrained Occupants in Single-Vehicle Pure Rollover Crashes

Mattos, Garrett; Grzebieta, Raphael; Bambach, Michael Richard; McIntosh, Andrew S.

doi:10.1080/15389588.2012.722735

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is believed that padded impacts oriented slightly anterior to the vertex, which result in the impacting face being nearly perpendicular to the cervical spine, cause the head to pocket into the padding, thereby reducing the opportunity for the neck to escape injury via flexion or extension (Winkelstein and Myers 1998). The results also agree with field data for pure rollover crashes that reported no instances of brain injury in cases with basal skull fractures that were indicative of near-axial loading (Mattos et al 2013a). The study focused on a tight range of impact velocities known to cause injury but not necessarily substantial and widespread damage.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…An upper limit of roof intrusion velocity, measured in dynamic tests, is approximately 6.3 m/s (Mattos et al 2013c). Occupants in pure rollovers predominantly exhibited evidence of head impact to the anterior and lateral aspects of the head (Mattos et al 2013a(Mattos et al , 2013b; thus, the impactor was oriented with increasing tilt anteriorly (sagittal plane), laterally (coronal plane), and anterolaterally (45 • from sagittal and coronal planes; Figure 1). In the nominal seated position of the THUMS the occipital condyles are located directly above (z-axis) the vertebral body of the first thoracic vertebrae (T1) and the Frankfurt plane is horizontal.…”

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Serious head and cervical spine injuries have been observed to occur in vehicles with less than 130 mm of roof intrusion (Bambach et al 2013;Mattos et al 2013a). An upper limit of roof intrusion velocity, measured in dynamic tests, is approximately 6.3 m/s (Mattos et al 2013c).…”

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Injuries to the brain and cervical vertebrae, the most frequently injured regions of the head and spine in rollover crashes (Funk et al 2012;Mattos et al 2013a), were assessed using a collection of indirect and direct measures. Peak forces and moments measured at C1 and T1 as well as the average of the peak principal strain measured in the cortical bone of each cervical vertebra (i.e., the average of 7 maximum values) were used to assess the cervical spine fractures.…”

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of serious brain and cervical spine injuries in rollover crashes, excluding particular patterns of basal skull fracture and open head injuries, have been reported to occur independent of one another (Bambach et al 2013;Mattos et al 2013aMattos et al , 2013b. This study investigates the differences in loading conditions, relative to rollover crashes, that may be responsible for the observed injury patterns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Sensitivity of Head and Cervical Spine Injury Measures to Impact Factors Relevant to Rollover Crashes

Mattos

McIntosh

Grzebieta

et al. 2015

Traffic Injury Prevention

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Serious head and cervical spine injuries have been shown to occur mostly independent of one another in pure rollover crashes. In an attempt to define a dynamic rollover crash test protocol that can replicate serious injuries to the head and cervical spine, it is important to understand the conditions that are likely to produce serious injuries to these 2 body regions. The objective of this research is to analyze the effect that impact factors relevant to a rollover crash have on the injury metrics of the head and cervical spine, with a specific interest in the differentiation between independent injuries and those that are predicted to occur concomitantly.Methods: A series of head impacts was simulated using a detailed finite element model of the human body, the Total HUman Model for Safety (THUMS), in which the impactor velocity, displacement, and direction were varied. The performance of the model was assessed against available experimental tests performed under comparable conditions. Indirect, kinematic-based, and direct, tissue-level, injury metrics were used to assess the likelihood of serious injuries to the head and cervical spine.Results: The performance of the THUMS head and spine in reconstructed experimental impacts compared well to reported values. All impact factors were significantly associated with injury measures for both the head and cervical spine. Increases in impact velocity and displacement resulted in increases in nearly all injury measures, whereas impactor orientation had opposite effects on brain and cervical spine injury metrics. The greatest cervical spine injury measures were recorded in an impact with a 15• anterior orientation. The greatest brain injury measures occurred when the impactor was at its maximum (45 • ) angle. Conclusions:The overall kinetic and kinematic response of the THUMS head and cervical spine in reconstructed experiment conditions compare well with reported values, although the occurrence of fractures was overpredicted. The trends in predicted head and cervical spine injury measures were analyzed for 90 simulated impact conditions. Impactor orientation was the only factor that could potentially explain the isolated nature of serious head and spine injuries under rollover crash conditions. The opposing trends of injury measures for the brain and cervical spine indicate that it is unlikely to reproduce the injuries simultaneously in a dynamic rollover test.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Fig 1 Impact Vectors (Left) and 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations