Method: This study involved in-depth crash investigation and 2 convenience-based data sets were used. These data sets investigated motorcycle crashes in the Sydney, Newcastle, and Adelaide regions. Participants included motorcycle riders who had crashed either on a public road or private property within the study areas. The mechanism of injury and the type of injuries were investigated.
Results: The most frequent cause of pelvic injuries in crashed motorcyclists was due to contact with the motorcycle fuel tank during the crash (85%). For riders who had come into contact with the fuel tank, the injury types were able to be grouped into 3 categories based on the complexity of the injury. The complexity of the injury appeared to increase with impact speed but this was a nonsignificant trend. The pelvic injuries that did not occur from contact with the fuel tank in this sample differed in asymmetry of loading and did not commonly involve injury to the bladder. They were commonly one-sided injuries but this differed based on the point of loading; however, a larger sample of these injuries needs to be investigated.
Conclusion: Overall improvements in road safety have not been replicated in the amelioration of pelvic injuries in motorcyclists and improvements in the design of crashworthy motorcycle fuel tanks appear to be required. 相似文献
Methods: This was an observational transversal study conducted in Curitiba, Brazil. Trained observers positioned at traffic lights collected information about the helmet fixation mode, the helmet model (full-face, open-face, modular, half), and the helmet retention system model (micrometric, double-D, fast-release). Additional data including position on the motorcycle, gender, and function of the motorcycle (as a work vehicle) were collected. The observers, collection site, and periods were randomly selected by lots.
Results: From a total of 3,050 motorcyclists, 1,807 (59.2%) had their helmets fastened correctly, 907 (29.7%) had the retention system fastened loosely, and in 336 (11.0%), the retention system was completely open. Increased odds of incorrect use were observed for the fast-release and double-D buckles compared to the micrometrics buckles, with a fixed odds ratio (OR) of 4.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.89–5.51) and 3.54 (95% CI, 2.46–5.09), respectively (P <.0001). Full-face helmets had a higher chance of incorrect use (P <.0001), and passengers had a higher incidence of incorrect use of the helmet than drivers (P <.0001).
Conclusion: An important risk factor related to the incorrect use of the helmet was the type of retention system. The helmet model and being a passenger had a secondary influence on incorrect use of helmets. 相似文献
Methods: We used our prospective cross-sectional substudy involving injured motorcyclists presenting at major trauma hospitals in Southern Klang Valley, Malaysia, between March 2010 and March 2011. of 391 subjects with facial injuries, 2 male motorcyclists sustained this laceration. The wounds were assessed and we believed that each was associated with the helmet visor. One of the visors was collected and the edge was inspected using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Results: The prevalence of this unusual injury was 0.51% (95% confidence interval, 0.002–0.012) among motorcyclists who sustained facial injuries. Both cases were involved in a head-on collision with their colliding partners and their helmets were intact throughout the crash. The visor in case 1 was intact, but the visor in case 2 was broken. SEM analysis showed that the visor in case 1 had a potential cutting surface.
We postulated that with helmet rotation in the forward and downward position and with some degree of visor bending or with a dislodged visor, the sharp-edged visor could potentially severely lacerate the face.
Conclusion: This injury affects facial aesthetics and early referral to the facial surgery team is advocated. Documentation of the mechanism of injury, the patient’s helmet and visor is obligatory, so that this information can be delivered to the regional road safety authority for preventive measures. 相似文献
Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of using motorcycle helmets on fatality rates.
Methods: A clinical data set including 2,868 trauma patients was analyzed; the cross-sectional registration database was administered by a university medical center in Central Taiwan. A path analysis framework and multiple logistic regressions were used to estimate the marginal effect of helmet use on mortality.
Results: Using a helmet did not directly reduce the mortality rate but rather indirectly reduced the mortality rate through intervening variables such as the severity of head injuries, number of craniotomies, and complications during therapeutic processes. Wearing a helmet can reduce the fatality rate by 1.3%, the rate of severe head injury by 34.5%, the craniotomy rate by 7.8%, and the rate of complications during therapeutic processes by 1.5%. These rates comprise 33.3% of the mortality rate for people who do not wear helmets, 67.3% of the severe head injury rate, 60.0% of the craniotomy rate, and 12.2% of the rate of complications during therapeutic processes.
Discussion: Wearing a helmet and trauma system designation are crucial factors that reduce the fatality rate. 相似文献
Methods: A retrospective cohort study comparing the outcomes between helmeted and nonhelmeted motorcycle crash victims over a 12.5-year period, from July 2, 2002, to December 31, 2013. All patients who were admitted to the hospital after a motorcycle crash were included in the study. Patients were stratified into helmeted and nonhelmeted cohorts. Group differences were compared using t-test or Wilcoxon rank test for continuous variables and chi-square test for dichotomous outcomes. Regression models were created to evaluate predictors of helmet use, alcohol and drugs as confounding variables, and factors that influenced hospital costs.
Results: The registry included 986 eligible patients. Of this group, 335 (34%) were helmeted and 651 (66%) were nonhelmeted. Overall, nonhelmeted patients had a worse clinical presentation, with lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS; P <.01), higher Injury Severity Score (ISS; P <.01), higher incidence of loss of consciousness (LOC; P <.01), longer intensive care unit (ICU; P <.01) admissions, and higher incidence of head (P <.01) or face injuries (P <.01). Nonhelmeted patients were also twice as more likely to die from their injuries (P =.04, odds ratio [OR] = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–3.45). Financially, nonhelmeted patients incurred mean hospital costs of $18,458, whereas helmeted patients incurred $14,970 (P =.18). ISS, GCS, and ICU length of stay were significantly correlated with increased hospital costs (P <.01). Not using a helmet was a significant predictor of mortality (P =.04) after adjusting for alcohol/drug use and age.
Conclusions: Helmet use is associated with lower injury severity and increased survival after a motorcycle crash. These outcomes remained consistent even after controlling for age and alcohol and drug use. The medical and financial impact of Connecticut's partial helmet law should be carefully evaluated to petition for increased education and enforcement of helmet use. 相似文献