Cervical Injuries and Blunt Trauma

Patrick Lynch

Cervical fractures sustained in a MVA are responsible for 60% of reported cases of SCI (Ref 6,7,1,8,9).

Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report

Since 2005, motor vehicle crashes account for 41.3% of reported SCI cases

The National SCI Statistical Center

Spinal fractures in drivers of open cockpit open wheel race cars were studied during the interval 1996 - 2005 in five racing series. There were 44 levels of fracture in 38 occurrences of fracture in 36 drivers. There were 3 injuries at the OC level, and 12 C3 - C7. Therefore the cervical fractures represented 34.1% of the spinal fractures, which is consistent with that present in MVA's.

Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report

The rescuer who removes a helmet improperly may unintentionally aggravate cervical spine injuries

American College of Surgeons

In the presence of an unstable distractive injury to the basiocciput there is a high probability that the application of traction to the head could result in worsening of the injury and or neurological status…

…Anecdotal data has shown that 5# of traction can result in catastrophic neurological deterioration of such an injury.

Dr Terry Trammell/Value of Eject Report

Cervical Injuries in motorsport continue to be a major concern for medical personnel. It is a topic of continuous debate because trauma rescuers struggle in an environment of limited data and incomplete answers to offer the best care to minimize the risk of additional neurologic injury.

Dr Dino Altmann

American College of Surgeons Helmet Removal Technique

Helmet Removal Digital x-Ray

Eject Helmet Removal Digital x-Ray

Mayo Clinic Eject Study Biomechanics Lab

GOAL: Assess the effect of helmet removal on the neck using the Eject system versus standard, manual

removal

3-D Scan

Milled headform, multiple sensors fitted

• METHOD: A model of the head was created to replace a live subject with forces

and torques on the head and neck were measured simultaneously

• Helmets were properly fit to live subjects to ensure correct fitting

• 3 dimensional computer models of the subjects heads were created

• The 3-D scans were converted into CNC milled wood replica heads

• A biomechanical neck was connected to head to replicate normal flex

• A six-component load cell was mounted to base of neck/model head

• Traction & compression forces were measured at the neck for data

Mayo Clinic Eject Study

Neck/Head form testing with six-component load cell for force data collection

Left/Right Front/Back Traction Left/Right Front/Back Traction Nodding Tilting Traction

1 61.37 -6.11 62.37 -3.06 -10.21 99.75 -35.25 7.62 5.01

2 19.65 5.80 49.76 -3.68 -7.66 67.56 -27.26 9.73 9.26

3 61.46 17.62 35.60 -4.45 -6.23 70.75 25.50 13.83 10.73

4 29.28 20.22 71.04 -8.37 -12.18 72.07 -42.42 28.88 -8.99

5 39.34 10.26 57.72 -4.71 -8.63 78.79 -29.88 14.22 7.52

6 24.64 12.51 51.86 -2.86 -9.95 66.09 -34.46 8.70 9.21

Avg 39.291 10.052 54.725 -4.523 -9.145 75.836 -23.961 13.830 5.456

Std Dev 18.329 9.445 12.100 2.023 2.097 12.522 24.784 7.854 7.343

1 9.27 -17.06 -42.35 0.92 4.31 -3.17 21.89 4.99 -6.65

2 40.71 16.51 -40.15 0.28 3.91 1.51 13.24 1.52 3.06

3 11.71 -13.86 -37.43 0.22 3.40 1.73 10.12 2.89 2.40

4 12.04 -10.27 -33.28 -0.27 2.87 1.01 12.74 1.64 5.06

5 43.53 25.06 -38.29 0.37 3.11 1.20 10.21 4.57 -5.56

6 23.81 -15.32 -39.78 0.38 3.45 -1.59 14.20 2.96 -2.17

Avg 23.512 -2.490 -38.546 0.316 3.507 0.117 13.733 3.096 -0.645

Std Dev 15.298 18.366 3.087 0.380 0.525 2.013 4.323 1.444 4.861

1 18.36 -23.39 -39.58 1.61 3.09 5.67 12.08 -4.90 5.73

2 47.91 19.50 -41.20 0.21 3.38 2.95 13.37 2.53 3.48

3 14.09 -15.62 -38.22 -0.19 2.45 4.26 7.09 2.27 3.89

4 34.85 -18.75 -40.15 0.36 2.67 5.16 9.53 2.37 -2.80

5 14.42 -26.32 -34.54 -0.40 -2.38 -3.87 6.61 4.25 6.71

6 38.53 -15.97 -43.96 0.33 2.12 -4.17 8.45 2.71 3.40

Avg 28.024 -13.422 -39.608 0.319 1.890 1.667 9.521 1.538 3.402

Std Dev 14.318 16.668 3.143 0.699 2.139 4.502 2.718 3.235 3.320

Figure 7 Figures 5 &6

Eje

ct

Syste

m®

Han

d P

um

p

Maximum

Medium Motor Cross Helmet

Man

ual

Rem

oval

Neck Torques (in-lb)E

ject

Syste

m®

16g

CO

2 C

art

rid

ge

Neck Forces (lb)Condition Trial

Head Forces (lb)

Mayo Clinic Lab Results

• Test data collected and analyzed

• Traction & compression forces identified

Motocross Helmet -

Traction/Compressive Forces at Neck during Removal

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (s)

Fo

rce

at

Ne

ck

(lb

)

Manual Removal Eject w ith 16g CO2

Mayo Clinic Lab Results

The positive values on this graph represent traction forces. The negative values represent compression. This illustrates that the traction forces at the neck increase progressively to a peak and then decrease at a similar rate during manual removal while traction forces remain minimal during removal using the Eject® System.

Maximum Traction/Compression Forces - Time

Mayo Clinic Lab Results

The positive values on this graph represent traction forces. The negative values represent compression. This illustrates that the traction forces at the neck increase progressively to a peak and then decrease at a similar rate during manual removal while traction forces remain minimal during removal using the Eject® System.

Maximum Traction/Compression Forces

Auto Racing Helmet-

Maximum Traction/Compressive Forces on Neck

0

50

100

150

200

250

Fo

rce

(N)

Manual Removal Eject with 16g Cartridge

Thank You

Patrick Lynch

Motorsport Director

Shock Doctor

Tel: +1 612 810 5330

Email: lynch@shockdoctor.com