Abstract
Abstract
Background
Rollover crashes continue to be a substantial public health issue in North America. Previous research has shown that the cervical spine is the most injured spine segment in rollovers, but much of the past research has focused on risk factors rather than the actual cervical spine injuries. We sought to examine how different types of cervical spine injuries (vertebral and/or cord injury) vary with different occupant-related factors in rollovers and to compare these with non-rollovers.
Methods
We obtained crash and injury information from the National Automotive Sampling System–Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) for 2005–2015 and Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) for 2017–2022. Based on weighted data, we calculated relative risks to assess how occupant sex, seat belt use, ejection status, and fatal outcome relate to the rate of different cervical spine injuries in rollovers and non-rollovers.
Results
In NASS-CDS occupants with cervical spine injuries (N = 111,040 weighted cases), about 91.5% experienced at least one vertebral injury whereas only 11.3% experienced a spinal cord injury (most of which had a concomitant vertebral fracture). All types of cervical spine injuries we examined were 3.4–5.2 times more likely to occur in rollovers compared to non-rollovers. These relative risks were similar for both sexes, belted and unbelted, non-ejected, and non-fatal occupants. The number of weighted CISS occupants with cervical spine injuries (N = 42,003) was smaller than in the NASS analysis, but cervical spine injuries remained 6.25 to 6.36 times more likely in rollovers compared to non-rollovers despite a more modern vehicle fleet.
Conclusions
These findings underscore the continued need for rollover-specific safety countermeasures, especially those focused on cervical spine injury prevention, and elucidate the frequency, severity and other characteristics of the specific vertebral and spinal cord injuries being sustained in rollovers. Our findings suggest that countermeasures focused on preventing cervical vertebral fractures will also effectively prevent most cervical spinal cord injuries.
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference67 articles.
1. Alem N;, Nusholtz G, Melvin J. 1984. Head and neck response to axial impacts, in: Proceedings of the 28th Stapp Car Crash Conference. Presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Stapp Car Crash Conference, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 275–288.
2. Altman DG, Bland JM. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003;326 7382:219.
3. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. 2008. Abbreviated Injury Scale 2005 - Update 2008.
4. Bahling GS, Bundorf RT, Kaspzyk GS, Moffatt EA, Orlowski KF, Stocke JE. 1990. Rollover and drop tests - the influence of roof strength on injury mechanics using belted dummies. Soc Automot Eng 902314.
5. Bedewi PG, Godrick DA, Digges KH, Bahouth GT. An investigation of occupant injury in rollover: NASS-CDS analysis of injury severity and source by rollover attributes. Prog Technol. 2004;101:437–51.