Ivancic, P C
Neck injury response to direct head impact Journal Article
In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 50, pp. 323–329, 2013.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: *Accidents, *Neck Injuries/et [Etiology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Acceleration, ANALYSIS of variance, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cadaver, Humans, Manikins, Rotation, Traffic, VIDEO recording
@article{Ivancic2013,
title = {Neck injury response to direct head impact},
author = {Ivancic, P C},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
journal = {Accident Analysis \& Prevention},
volume = {50},
pages = {323--329},
abstract = {Previous in vivo studies have observed flexion of the upper or upper/middle cervical spine and extension at inferior spinal levels due to direct head impacts. These studies hypothesized that hyperflexion may contribute to injury of the upper or middle cervical spine during real-life head impact. Our objectives were to determine the cervical spine injury response to direct head impact, document injuries, and compare our results with previously reported in vivo data. Our model consisted of a human cadaver neck (n=6) mounted to the torso of a rear impact dummy and carrying a surrogate head. Rearward force was applied to the model's forehead using a cable and pulley system and free-falling mass of 3.6kg followed by 16.7kg. High-speed digital cameras tracked head, vertebral, and pelvic motions. Average peak spinal rotations observed during impact were statistically compared (P\<0.05) to physiological ranges obtained from intact flexibility tests. Peak head impact force was 249 and 504N for the 3.6 and 16.7kg free-falling masses, respectively. Occipital condyle loads reached 205.3N posterior shear, 331.4N compression, and 7.4Nm extension moment. We observed significant increases in intervertebral extension peaks above physiologic at C6/7 (26.3degree vs. 5.7degree) and C7/T1 (29.7degree vs. 4.6degree) and macroscopic ligamentous and osseous injuries at C6 through T1 due to the 504N impacts. Our results indicate that a rearward head shear force causes complex neck loads of posterior shear, compression, and extension moment sufficient to injure the lower cervical spine. Real-life neck injuries due to motor vehicle crashes, sports impacts, or falls are likely due to combined loads transferred to the neck by direct head impact and torso inertial loads. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {*Accidents, *Neck Injuries/et [Etiology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Acceleration, ANALYSIS of variance, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cadaver, Humans, Manikins, Rotation, Traffic, VIDEO recording},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
King, A I
Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax Journal Article
In: Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 55–81, 2000.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: *Biomechanical Phenomena, *Craniocerebral Trauma/pp [Physiopathology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], *Thoracic Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Animals, Biomedical Engineering, Brain Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Humans
@article{King2000,
title = {Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax},
author = {King, A I},
year = {2000},
date = {2000-01-01},
journal = {Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering},
volume = {2},
pages = {55--81},
abstract = {This is the first of two chapters dealing with some 60 years of accumulated knowledge in the field of impact biomechanics. The regions covered in this first chapter are the head, neck, and thorax. The next chapter will discuss the abdomen, pelvis, and the lower extremities. Although the principal thrust of the research has been toward the mitigation of injuries sustained by automotive crash victims, the results of this research have applications in aircraft safety, contact sports, and protection of military personnel and civilians from intentional injury, such as in the use of nonlethal weapons. The reader should be keenly aware of the wide variation in human response and tolerance data in the cited results. This is due primarily to the large biological variation among humans and to the effects of aging. Average values are useful in design but cannot be applied to individuals. [References: 94]},
keywords = {*Biomechanical Phenomena, *Craniocerebral Trauma/pp [Physiopathology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], *Thoracic Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Animals, Biomedical Engineering, Brain Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Humans},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Ivancic, P C
Neck injury response to direct head impact Journal Article
In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 50, pp. 323–329, 2013.
@article{Ivancic2013,
title = {Neck injury response to direct head impact},
author = {Ivancic, P C},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
journal = {Accident Analysis \& Prevention},
volume = {50},
pages = {323--329},
abstract = {Previous in vivo studies have observed flexion of the upper or upper/middle cervical spine and extension at inferior spinal levels due to direct head impacts. These studies hypothesized that hyperflexion may contribute to injury of the upper or middle cervical spine during real-life head impact. Our objectives were to determine the cervical spine injury response to direct head impact, document injuries, and compare our results with previously reported in vivo data. Our model consisted of a human cadaver neck (n=6) mounted to the torso of a rear impact dummy and carrying a surrogate head. Rearward force was applied to the model's forehead using a cable and pulley system and free-falling mass of 3.6kg followed by 16.7kg. High-speed digital cameras tracked head, vertebral, and pelvic motions. Average peak spinal rotations observed during impact were statistically compared (P\<0.05) to physiological ranges obtained from intact flexibility tests. Peak head impact force was 249 and 504N for the 3.6 and 16.7kg free-falling masses, respectively. Occipital condyle loads reached 205.3N posterior shear, 331.4N compression, and 7.4Nm extension moment. We observed significant increases in intervertebral extension peaks above physiologic at C6/7 (26.3degree vs. 5.7degree) and C7/T1 (29.7degree vs. 4.6degree) and macroscopic ligamentous and osseous injuries at C6 through T1 due to the 504N impacts. Our results indicate that a rearward head shear force causes complex neck loads of posterior shear, compression, and extension moment sufficient to injure the lower cervical spine. Real-life neck injuries due to motor vehicle crashes, sports impacts, or falls are likely due to combined loads transferred to the neck by direct head impact and torso inertial loads. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
King, A I
Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax Journal Article
In: Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 55–81, 2000.
@article{King2000,
title = {Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax},
author = {King, A I},
year = {2000},
date = {2000-01-01},
journal = {Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering},
volume = {2},
pages = {55--81},
abstract = {This is the first of two chapters dealing with some 60 years of accumulated knowledge in the field of impact biomechanics. The regions covered in this first chapter are the head, neck, and thorax. The next chapter will discuss the abdomen, pelvis, and the lower extremities. Although the principal thrust of the research has been toward the mitigation of injuries sustained by automotive crash victims, the results of this research have applications in aircraft safety, contact sports, and protection of military personnel and civilians from intentional injury, such as in the use of nonlethal weapons. The reader should be keenly aware of the wide variation in human response and tolerance data in the cited results. This is due primarily to the large biological variation among humans and to the effects of aging. Average values are useful in design but cannot be applied to individuals. [References: 94]},
keywords = {},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Ivancic, P C
Neck injury response to direct head impact Journal Article
In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 50, pp. 323–329, 2013.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: *Accidents, *Neck Injuries/et [Etiology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Acceleration, ANALYSIS of variance, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cadaver, Humans, Manikins, Rotation, Traffic, VIDEO recording
@article{Ivancic2013,
title = {Neck injury response to direct head impact},
author = {Ivancic, P C},
year = {2013},
date = {2013-01-01},
journal = {Accident Analysis \& Prevention},
volume = {50},
pages = {323--329},
abstract = {Previous in vivo studies have observed flexion of the upper or upper/middle cervical spine and extension at inferior spinal levels due to direct head impacts. These studies hypothesized that hyperflexion may contribute to injury of the upper or middle cervical spine during real-life head impact. Our objectives were to determine the cervical spine injury response to direct head impact, document injuries, and compare our results with previously reported in vivo data. Our model consisted of a human cadaver neck (n=6) mounted to the torso of a rear impact dummy and carrying a surrogate head. Rearward force was applied to the model's forehead using a cable and pulley system and free-falling mass of 3.6kg followed by 16.7kg. High-speed digital cameras tracked head, vertebral, and pelvic motions. Average peak spinal rotations observed during impact were statistically compared (P\<0.05) to physiological ranges obtained from intact flexibility tests. Peak head impact force was 249 and 504N for the 3.6 and 16.7kg free-falling masses, respectively. Occipital condyle loads reached 205.3N posterior shear, 331.4N compression, and 7.4Nm extension moment. We observed significant increases in intervertebral extension peaks above physiologic at C6/7 (26.3degree vs. 5.7degree) and C7/T1 (29.7degree vs. 4.6degree) and macroscopic ligamentous and osseous injuries at C6 through T1 due to the 504N impacts. Our results indicate that a rearward head shear force causes complex neck loads of posterior shear, compression, and extension moment sufficient to injure the lower cervical spine. Real-life neck injuries due to motor vehicle crashes, sports impacts, or falls are likely due to combined loads transferred to the neck by direct head impact and torso inertial loads. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {*Accidents, *Neck Injuries/et [Etiology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Acceleration, ANALYSIS of variance, Biomechanical Phenomena, Cadaver, Humans, Manikins, Rotation, Traffic, VIDEO recording},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
King, A I
Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax Journal Article
In: Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 55–81, 2000.
Abstract | BibTeX | Tags: *Biomechanical Phenomena, *Craniocerebral Trauma/pp [Physiopathology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], *Thoracic Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Animals, Biomedical Engineering, Brain Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Humans
@article{King2000,
title = {Fundamentals of impact biomechanics: Part I--Biomechanics of the head, neck, and thorax},
author = {King, A I},
year = {2000},
date = {2000-01-01},
journal = {Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering},
volume = {2},
pages = {55--81},
abstract = {This is the first of two chapters dealing with some 60 years of accumulated knowledge in the field of impact biomechanics. The regions covered in this first chapter are the head, neck, and thorax. The next chapter will discuss the abdomen, pelvis, and the lower extremities. Although the principal thrust of the research has been toward the mitigation of injuries sustained by automotive crash victims, the results of this research have applications in aircraft safety, contact sports, and protection of military personnel and civilians from intentional injury, such as in the use of nonlethal weapons. The reader should be keenly aware of the wide variation in human response and tolerance data in the cited results. This is due primarily to the large biological variation among humans and to the effects of aging. Average values are useful in design but cannot be applied to individuals. [References: 94]},
keywords = {*Biomechanical Phenomena, *Craniocerebral Trauma/pp [Physiopathology], *Neck Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], *Thoracic Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Animals, Biomedical Engineering, Brain Injuries/pp [Physiopathology], Humans},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}