Injury risk of a 6-year-old wheelchair-seated occupant in a frontal motor vehicle impact—‘ANSI/RESNA WC-19’ sled testing analysis

Ha, DongRan; Bertocci, Gina

doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.08.011

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fig. 8 compares our mean peak WTORS loads against Ha's previously measured loads [28] for the same model wheelchair and ATD tested in frontal impact using the ANSI/RESNA WC19 (48 km/h, 20 g) crash pulse [9]. Mean peak wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint loads for frontal impact are shown as Series FI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of pediatric wheelchair kinematics and wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint system loading during rear impact

Fuhrman

Karg

Bertocci

2010

Medical Engineering & Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of pediatric wheelchair kinematics and wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint system loading during rear impact

Fuhrman

Karg

Bertocci

2010

Medical Engineering & Physics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chest deflection for two iterations of the test were at the limit of 40 mm specified in regulation. The first and second sled test exceeded the peak neck tension force limit of 1490 N. No tests exceeded the independent compressive neck force limits (Ha & Bertocci 2007).…”

Section: Results: Main Findings Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…frontal crash pulse. One study investigated injury risk of a pediatric occupant with a disability sitting in a wheelchair while being transported (Ha & Bertocci 2007). The other studied the possibilities of better protection when children were not using booster seats.…”

Section: Results: Methodology Employed In the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Includes requirements such as the child restraint system must pass a 30 miles per hour frontal sled test that simulates a crash, padding requirements, flammability standards, and buckle release pressure.) and FMVSS 208 (Safety standard for occupant crash protection that establishes performance requirements for passenger vehicles (Lewandowski 2006)) was used to determine the injury risk of the pediatric wheelchair occupant in a motor vehicle crash (Ha & Bertocci 2007).…”

Section: Results: Methodology Employed In the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pediatric safety: review of the susceptibility of children with disabilities to injuries involving movement related events

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Toy-related injuries have increased significantly in the past decade, in particular those related to ride-on toys. This increase has been attributed to movement related events such as falls and inertial impacts. Furthermore, children with disabilities have been reported to be at a greater risk of being injured, and are therefore more susceptible to toy-related injuries. Although, efforts are being made to modify ride-on toys as a method for increasing quality of life in children with disabilities, there are very limited pediatric safety studies regarding children with disabilities and modified ride-on toys. Methods This manuscript presents a systematic review of literature summarizing the current state of toy-related injuries including children with and without disabilities. Children exposed to inertial impacts in motor vehicle crashes have also been reviewed to present current pediatric safety testing methodologies and injury tolerance thresholds. Out of 2608 articles, 10 studies were included regarding current trends in toy-related injuries and safety testing methodologies. Conclusions From this study, a gap in the literature was discovered concerning the susceptibility of children with disabilities to toy-related injuries, specifically in relation to ride-on toys and the repercussion surrounding such injuries. It is theorized that such lack of data is due to the difficulty and costs associated with experimental validation. Hence, it is recommended that computer simulations be used to provide preliminary data analysis.

show abstract

“…In the United States, about 1.6 million people residing outside institutions use wheelchairs [1], and wheelchair user transportation safety is therefore a key consideration. Frontal collisions dominate serious vehicle collisions [2], and to date, the main focus of wheelchair safety research has been preventing injury through occupant retention in frontal impacts [3][4][5] and developing crash protection for pediatric cases [6]. Main developments have been in wheelchair tie-down and occupant restraint systems (WTORSs), which are stipulated in a series of frontal impact safety standards in International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10542 [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rear-impact neck protection devices for adult wheelchair users

Simms¹,

Madden²,

Fitzpatrick³

et al. 2009

JRRD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Many wheelchair users remain in their wheelchairs during transit. Safety research for wheelchair users has focused mainly on frontal impact. However, although they are generally less severe, rear-impact injuries are expensive and difficult to treat and whiplash injury protection for adult wheelchair users remains poorly understood. In this article, 10 g (16 km/h) rear-impact sled tests conducted with the Biofidelic Rear Impact Dummy II or BioRID-II (Denton ATD Inc and Chalmers University of Technology; Gothenburg, Sweden) seated in a rigid wheelchair with no head restraint showed that Abbreviated Injury Scale-score 1 neck injury risk evaluated with the neck injury criterion (NIC) and Nkm criterion is substantially above proposed threshold levels. A prototype wheelchair head restraint was developed and tested together with an existing commercial head restraint (Rolko; Borgholzhausen, Germany) in the same 10 g (16 km/h) rear impact. Both head restraints reduced the injury scores substantially. NIC test scores for the head restraints with no gap ranged from 18 to 24 (approximately 20%-30% chance of neck injury symptoms of duration >1 month) compared with test scores for no head restraints that ranged from 34 to 37 (approximately 95% chance of neck injury). The corresponding extension-posterior Nkm scores with no gap ranged from 0.30 to 0.35 (approximately 5% chance of neck injury) compared with no head restraint of 1.16 (approximately 45% chance of neck injury symptoms). However, the number of sled tests performed was small (three with no head restraint and six with a head restraint), and these results should be considered mainly trends. Preliminary results also showed that the horizontal gap between the head and the wheelchair head-restraint cushion should be as small possible.

show abstract

Injury risk of a 6-year-old wheelchair-seated occupant in a frontal motor vehicle impact—‘ANSI/RESNA WC-19’ sled testing analysis

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

Characterization of pediatric wheelchair kinematics and wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint system loading during rear impact

Characterization of pediatric wheelchair kinematics and wheelchair tiedown and occupant restraint system loading during rear impact

Pediatric safety: review of the susceptibility of children with disabilities to injuries involving movement related events

Rear-impact neck protection devices for adult wheelchair users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About