WHIPS seat and occupant motions during simulated rear crashes

Global trends and hotspots related to whiplash injury: A visualization study

Whiplash injury, commonly occurring as a result of car accidents, represents a significant public health concern. However, to date, no comprehensive study has utilized bibliometric approaches to analyze all published research on whiplash injury. Therefore, our study aims to provide an overview of current trends and the global research landscape using bibliometrics and visualization software. We performed a bibliometric analysis of the data retrieved and extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection database in whiplash injury research up to December 31, 2022. Research articles were assessed for specific characteristics, such as year of publication, country/region, institution, author, journal, field of study, references, and keywords. We identified 1751 research articles in the analysis and observed a gradual growth in the number of publications and references. The United States (379 articles, 21.64%), Canada (309 articles, 17.65%), and Australia (280 articles, 16.00%) emerged as the top-contributing countries/regions. Among institutions, the University of Queensland (169 articles, 9.65%) and the University of Alberta (106 articles, 6.05%) demonstrated the highest productivity. "Whiplash," "Neck Pain," "Cervical Spine Disease," and "Whiplash-associated Disorders" are high-frequency keywords. Furthermore, emerging areas of research interest included traumatic brain injury and mental health issues following whiplash injury. The number of papers and citations has increased significantly over the past 2 decades. Whiplash injury research is characteristically multidisciplinary in approach, involving the fields of rehabilitation, neuroscience, and spinal disciplines. By identifying current research trends, our study offers valuable insights to guide future research endeavors in this field.

Neck injury response to direct head impact

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 (26.3° vs. 5.7°) and C7/T1 (29.7° vs. 4.6°) 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.

Cervical neural space narrowing during simulated rear crashes with anti-whiplash systems

PURPOSE

Chronic radicular symptoms have been documented in whiplash patients, potentially caused by cervical neural tissue compression during an automobile rear crash. Our goals were to determine neural space narrowing of the lower cervical spine during simulated rear crashes with whiplash protection system (WHIPS) and active head restraint (AHR) and to compare these data to those obtained with no head restraint (NHR). We extrapolated our results to determine the potential for cord, ganglion, and nerve root compression.

METHODS

Our model, consisting of a human neck specimen within a BioRID II crash dummy, was subjected to simulated rear crashes in a WHIPS seat (n = 6, peak 12.0 g and ΔV 11.4 kph) or AHR seat and subsequently with NHR (n = 6, peak 11.0 g and ΔV 10.2 kph with AHR; peak 11.5 g and ΔV 10.7 kph with NHR). Cervical canal and foraminal narrowing were computed and average peak values statistically compared (P < 0.05) between WHIPS, AHR, and NHR.

RESULTS

Average peak canal and foramen narrowing could not be statistically differentiated between WHIPS, AHR, or NHR. Peak narrowing with WHIPS or AHR was 2.7 mm for canal diameter and 1.6 mm, 2.7 mm, and 5.9 mm(2) for foraminal width, height and area, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While lower cervical spine cord compression during a rear crash is unlikely in those with normal canal diameters, our results demonstrated foraminal kinematics sufficient to compress spinal ganglia and nerve roots. Future anti-whiplash systems designed to reduce cervical neural space narrowing may lead to reduced radicular symptoms in whiplash patients.

Does knowledge of seat design and whiplash injury mechanisms translate to understanding outcomes?

STUDY DESIGN

Review of whiplash injury mechanisms and effects of anti-whiplash systems including active head restraint (AHR) and Whiplash Protection System (WHIPS).

OBJECTIVE

This article provides an overview of previous biomechanical and epidemiological studies of AHR and WHIPS and investigates whether seat design and biomechanical knowledge of proposed whiplash injury mechanisms translates to understanding outcomes of rear crash occupants.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

In attempt to reduce whiplash injuries, some newer automobiles incorporate anti-whiplash systems such as AHR or WHIPS. During a rear crash, mechanically based systems activate by occupant momentum pressing into the seatback whereas electronically based systems activate using crash sensors and an electronic control unit linked to the head restraint.

METHODS

To investigate the effects of AHR and WHIPS on occupant responses including head and neck loads and motions, biomechanical studies of simulated rear crashes have been performed using human volunteers, mathematical models, crash dummies, whole cadavers, and hybrid cadaveric/surrogate models. Epidemiological studies have evaluated the effects of AHR and WHIPS on reducing whiplash injury claims and lessening subjective complaints of neck pain after rear crashes. RESULTS.: Biomechanical studies indicate that AHR and WHIPS reduced the potential for some whiplash injuries but did not completely eliminate the injury risk. Epidemiological outcomes indicate reduced whiplash injury claims or subjective complaints of crash-related neck pain between 43 and 75% due to AHR and between 21% and 49% due to WHIPS as compared to conventional seats and head restraints.

CONCLUSION

Yielding energy-absorbing seats aim to reduce occupant loads and accelerations whereas AHRs aim to provide early head support to minimize head and neck motions. Continued objective biomechanical and epidemiological studies of anti-whiplash systems together with industry, governmental, and clinical initiatives will ultimately lead to reduced whiplash injuries through improved prevention strategies.

What occupant kinematics and neuromuscular responses tell us about whiplash injury

STUDY DESIGN

Literature-based review.

OBJECTIVE

To review the published data on occupant kinematic and neuromuscular responses during low-speed impacts and analyze how these data inform our understanding of whiplash injury.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

A stereotypical kinematic and neuromuscular response has been observed in human subjects exposed to rear-end impacts. Combined with various models of injury, these response data have been used to develop anti-whiplash seats that prevent whiplash injury in many, but not all, individuals exposed to a rear-end crash.

METHODS

Synthesis of the literature.

RESULTS

Understanding of the occupant kinematics and neuromuscular responses, combined with data from various seat-related interventions, have shown that differential motion between the superior and inferior ends of the cervical spine is responsible for many whiplash injuries. The number of whiplash injuries not prevented by current anti-whiplash seats suggests than further work remains, possibly related to designing seats that respond dynamically to the occupant and collision properties. Neck muscles alter the head and neck kinematics during the interval in which injury likely occurs, even in initially relaxed occupants. It remains unclear whether muscle activation mitigates or exacerbates whiplash injury. If muscle activation mitigates injury, then advance warning could be used to help occupant tense their muscles before impact. Alternatively, if muscle activation exacerbates whiplash injury, then a loud preimpact sound that uncouples the startle and postural components of the muscle response could reduce peak muscle activation during a whiplash exposure.

CONCLUSION

Our improved understanding of whiplash injury has led to anti-whiplash seats that have prevented many whiplash injuries. Further work remains to optimize these and possibly other systems to further reduce the number of whiplash injuries.