Human Head and Neck Kinematics After Low Velocity Rear-End Impacts - Understanding “Whiplash”

McConnell, Whitman E.; Howard, Richard P.; Poppel, Jon Van; Krause, Robin; Guzman, Herbert; Bomar, John B.; Raddin, James H.; Benedict, James V.; Hatsell, Charles P.

doi:10.4271/952724

Cited by 102 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the cervical muscles, the sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle might play a significant role in whiplash injury [2,9,11,13,16]. Magnusson et al [11] did not report significant differences in cervical muscle reaction times between expected and unexpected conditions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of sternocleidomastoid muscle in simulated low velocity rear-end impacts

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of sternocleidomastoid muscle in simulated low velocity rear-end impacts

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[7][8][9][10][11] These conclusions, however, are not necessarily those of the original researchers conducting the crash tests and do not take into account the practical limitations of human volunteer crash tests, as such testing does not consist of sufficient variation in either crash circumstances or individual occupant injury risk to enable researchers to establish accurate risk thresholds. It has been hypothesized that the number of meaningful permutations of crash circumstance, vehicle factors, and occupant susceptibility variables numbers in the tens of thousands and thus cannot be representatively sampled by the small population of subjects willing to subject themselves to crash testing or the vehicles available for such tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Many authors have endeavored to define a minimum crash speed change (or delta V) threshold for neck injury in rear impact collision, relying primarily on the results of human volunteer crash tests as a basis for the hypothesized threshold. [7][8][9][10][11] The concept of an absolute injury threshold for whiplash has been dismissed as methodologically unsound, 12 as the variation in experimental crash tests and among the volunteers for such tests is not representative of the crash circumstances and injury risk seen in the real world. Human volunteer crash tests, although lacking in generalizability for highly individual characteristics such as injury threshold, can generate useful information on occupant kinematics and aid in the design of vehicle interior and seat/head restraint safety innovations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human subject rear passenger symptom response to frontal car-to-car low-speed crash tests

Croft

Eldridge²

2011

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether healthy adult volunteers report symptoms following exposure to low-speed frontal crashes at low velocities. Methods: Nineteen medically screened, healthy, informed, and willing volunteers (17 men, 2 women; mean age, 37 years) were exposed to low-speed frontal crashes. All volunteers were seated in the rear seat position of the bullet vehicle. Closing velocities ranged from 4.1 to 8.3 mph (mean, 6.7 mph). For the bullet vehicle, the delta V ranged from 1.4 to 3.9 mph with a mean of 2.8 mph.Results: Eighty-eight percent of volunteers attributed symptoms of discomfort to their crash exposure. All reported symptoms were transient, and none required medical treatment. The mean duration was 1 day. Conclusions: Even at relatively low speeds, there is no lower threshold below which it can be reasonably assumed that healthy and prepared volunteer rear seat passengers will not sustain some level of minor injury in a frontal collision. Although the reported mean delta V for injured persons in real-world frontal crashes has been reported to be as high as 8.1 mph, this does not offer any insight into the minimum threshold for such injuries among all at-risk vehicle occupants.

show abstract

“…Previous studies have described these as tensile, compressive, shear, and torque forces. [4][5][6] The 1995 Quebec Task Force adopted the following definition of whiplash. Whiplash is an acceleration-deceleration mechanism of energy transfer to the neck.…”

Section: Whiplash Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship of whiplash injury and temporomandibular disorders: a narrative literature review

Fernandez

Amiri

Jaime³

et al. 2009

Journal of Chiropractic Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this article is to offer a narrative review and discuss the possible relationship between temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) and whiplash injuries. Methods: Databases from 1966 to present were searched including PubMed; Manual, Alternative, and Natural Therapy Index System; and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Search terms used included whiplash injury, temporomandibular disorders and craniomandibular disorders. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies on orofacial pain of a musculoskeletal origin addressing the following topics: posttraumatic temporomandibular disorder (pTMD) incidence and prevalence, mechanism of injury, clinical findings and characteristics, prognosis (including psychologic factors). Excluded were studies of orofacial pain from nontraumatic origin, as well as nonmusculoskeletal causes including neurologic, vascular, neoplastic, or infectious disease. Results: Thirty-two studies describing the effects of whiplash on TMD were reviewed based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The best evidence from prospective studies indicates a low to moderate incidence and prevalence. Only 3 studies addressed mechanism of injury theories. Most studies focusing on clinical findings and characteristics suggest significant differences when comparing pTMD to idiopathic/nontraumatic patients. Regarding prognosis, most studies suggest a significant difference when comparing pTMD to idiopathic/nontraumatic TMD patients, with pTMD having a poorer prognosis. Conclusions: There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of whiplash on the development of TMD. Furthermore, because of lack of homogeneity in the study populations and lack of standardization of data collection procedures and outcomes measured, this review cannot conclusively resolve the controversies that exist concerning this relationship. This review of the literature is provided to clarify the issues and to provide useful clinical information for health care providers managing TMD such as doctors of chiropractic, physical therapists, dentists, and medical doctors.

show abstract

Human Head and Neck Kinematics After Low Velocity Rear-End Impacts - Understanding “Whiplash”

Cited by 102 publications

References 30 publications

The role of sternocleidomastoid muscle in simulated low velocity rear-end impacts

The role of sternocleidomastoid muscle in simulated low velocity rear-end impacts

Human subject rear passenger symptom response to frontal car-to-car low-speed crash tests

The relationship of whiplash injury and temporomandibular disorders: a narrative literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About