Spine Injuries in Household Environments: A Comprehensive Analysis

Introduction Recognizing the concerns posed by spine injuries within homes, stemming from falls, interactions with furnishings, and daily activities, it is imperative to consider preventive strategies. Our analysis of spine injuries utilizing the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) data sheds light on falls, furnishings, age-specific risks, recreation, technology, and socioeconomic disparities as contributing elements, accentuating the need for targeted interventions. This study aims to provide insights into the prevalence of spine injuries in different household locations, associated products, age groups, and gender, thus informing injury prevention strategies for safer living environments. Methods This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study utilizing data between 2013 to 2022 from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System database. Specific household product codes and demographic data, such as age and gender, were analyzed. Statistical analysis in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) involved descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions. Results In analyzing 44,267 spine injuries, the study revealed location-specific variations in spine injuries within households. Living rooms and bedrooms had the highest injury rates at 34.17% and 21.65%, respectively. Significant differences in injury rates between males and females across various home locations. Females accounted for 51.78% of injuries in the living room and 59.99% in the bedroom. In the kitchen, females experienced 53.21% of injuries, while males accounted for 46.79% of cases. Notably, overall spine injuries exhibited a significant difference between males and females, with females having a higher total likelihood of injuries (AOR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.14-1.77, p < 0.001). Regarding age, individuals between 51-60 years were most vulnerable to spine injuries, accounting for 17.98% of total cases. Notably, the age group of 61-70 years exhibited a substantial proportion of injuries at 17.12%, while the age group of 71-80 years accounted for 14.39%. The age group of 41-50 years also displayed a notable injury rate of 14.12%. The youngest age group, 0-10 years, demonstrated the lowest percentage of injuries at 4.79%. This age-based analysis provides valuable insights into the distribution of spine injuries across different demographic segments. Regarding age, individuals between 51-60 years were most vulnerable to spine injuries, comprising 17.98% of total cases. Age groups of 41-50 and 61-70 years also showed substantial proportions of injuries, accounting for 14.12% and 17.12%, respectively. The youngest age group, 0-10, exhibited the lowest percentage of injuries at 4.79%. Conclusion The study focuses on the occurrence of spinal injuries in common sites of injury in the household, such as the living room, bedroom, kitchen, and stairs. There is increased prevalence amongst females and increased risk vulnerability amongst people 51 to 60 years of age. Our research emphasizes the necessity of implementing specific injury prevention measures tailored to different demographic groups within their home setting. This approach should involve collaborative decision-making with patients while prioritizing patient education to create a safer living environment and reduce the likelihood of spine injuries.

The 6-plus-person lift transfer technique compared with other methods of spine boarding

CONTEXT

To achieve full spinal immobilization during on-the-field management of an actual or potential spinal injury, rescuers transfer and secure patients to a long spine board. Several techniques can be used to facilitate this patient transfer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare spinal segment motion of cadavers during the execution of the 6-plus-person (6+) lift, lift-and-slide (LS), and logroll (LR) spine-board transfer techniques.

DESIGN

Crossover study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Eight medical professionals (1 woman, 7 men) with 5 to 32 years of experience were enlisted to help carry out the transfer techniques. In addition, test conditions were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 males, 2 females) with a mean age of 86.2 +/- 11.4 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S)

Three-dimensional angular and linear motions initially were recorded during execution of transfer techniques, initially using cadavers with intact spines and then after C5-C6 spinal segment destabilization. The mean maximal linear displacement and angular motion obtained and calculated from the 3 trials for each test condition were included in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Flexion-extension angular motion, as well as anteroposterior and distraction-compression linear motion, did not vary between the LR and either the 6+ lift or LS. Compared with the execution of the 6+ lift and LS, the execution of the LR generated significantly more axial rotation (P = .008 and .001, respectively), more lateral flexion (P = .005 and .003, respectively), and more medial-lateral translation (P = .003 and .004, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A small amount of spinal motion is inevitable when executing spine-board transfer techniques; however, the execution of the 6+ lift or LS appears to minimize the extent of motion generated across a globally unstable spinal segment.

Do "whiplash injuries" occur in low-speed rear impacts?

A study was conducted to find out whether in a rear-impact motor vehicle accident, velocity changes in the impact vehicle of between 10 and 15 km/h can cause so-called "whiplash injuries". An assessment of the actual injury mechanism of such whiplash injuries and comparison of vehicle rear-end collisions with amusement park bumper car collisions was also carried out. The study was based on experimental biochemical, kinematic, and clinical analysis with volunteers. In Europe between DM 10 and 20 billion each year is paid out by insurance companies alone for whiplash injuries, although various studies show that the biodynamic stresses arising in the case of slight to moderate vehicle damage may not be high enough to cause such injuries. Most of these experimental studies with cadavers, dummies, and some with volunteers were performed with velocity changes below 10 km/h. About 65% of the insurance claims, however, take place in cases with velocity changes of up to 15 km/h. Fourteen made volunteers (aged 28-47 years; average 33.2 years) and five female volunteers (aged 26-37 years; average 32.8 years) participated in 17 vehicle rear-end collisions and 3 bumper car collisions. All cars were fitted with normal European bumper systems. Before, 1 day after and 4-5 weeks after each vehicle crash test and in two of the three bumper car crash tests a clinical examination, a computerized motion analysis, and an MRI examination with Gd-DTPA of the cervical spine of the test persons were performed. During each crash test, in which the test persons were completely screened-off visually and acoustically, the muscle tension of various neck muscles was recorded by surface electromyography (EMG). The kinematic responses of the test persons and the forces occurring were measured by accelerometers. The kinematic analyses were performed with movement markers and a screening frequency of 700 Hz. To record the acceleration effects of the target vehicle and the bullet vehicle, vehicle accident data recorders were installed in both. The contact phase of the vehicle structures and the kinematics of the test persons were also recorded using high-speed cameras. The results showed that the range of velocity change (vehicle collisions) was 8.7-14.2 km/h (average 11.4 km/h) and the range of mean acceleration of the target vehicle was 2.1-3.6 g (average 2.7 g). The range of velocity change (bumper car collisions) was 8.3- 10.6 km/h (average 9.9 km/h) and the range of mean acceleration of the target bumper car was 1.8-2.6 g (average 2.2 g). No injury signs were found at the physical examinations, computerized motion analyses, or at the MRI examinations. Only one of the male volunteers suffered a reduction of rotation of the cervical spine to the left of 10 degrees for 10 weeks. The kinematic analysis very clearly showed that the whiplash mechanism consists of translation/extension (high energy) of the cervical spine with consecutive flexion (low energy) of the cervical spine: hyperextension of the cervical spine during the vehicle crashes was not observed. All the tests showed that the EMG signal of the neck muscles starts before the head movement takes place. The stresses recorded in the vehicle collisions were in the same range as those recorded in the bumper car crashes. From the extent of the damage to the vehicles after a collision it is possible to determine the level of the velocity change. The study concluded that, the "limit of harmlessness" for stresses arising from rear-end impacts with regard to the velocity changes lies between 10 and 15 km/h. For everyday practice, photographs of the damage to cars involved in a rear-end impact are essential to determine this velocity change. The stress occurring in vehicle rear-end collisions can be compared to the stress in bumper car collisions.