Brown C K, Cline D M
Department of Emergency Medicine, Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, NC 27858, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2001 Mar;19(2):93-8. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2001.19982.
Injury to rear-seat occupants (RSOs) has received little systematic study in the literature. Past studies have focused on patterns of injury presented to the emergency department, various aspects of restraint usage and injury, or specific populations of RSOs. This is the first systematic analysis of injury severity to RSOs. RSOs involved in motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) sustain injuries of equal severity as do front-seated occupants (FSOs) involved in the same crash. The setting was a rural North Carolina emergency department where patients were evaluated at the sole hospital for the county. The design was a 2-year retrospective review of all MVCs with RSOs occurring in Pitt County North Carolina in calendar years 1988 and 1989. The Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test and Logistic Regression Analysis with Injury Severity Score (ISS) as the dependent variable were performed. Three hundred forty-six crashes involving 367 vehicles with RSOs and 1,273 occupants that sent 222 patients to the hospital. ISS was higher for unrestrained occupants (1.87 versus 0.51), occupants of vehicles driven by legally intoxicated drivers (4.04 versus 0.73), occupants between the ages of 30 and 59 years (1.06 versus 0.65) and FSOs (1.04 versus 0.85) (Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test P <.0002). Logistic regression analysis confirmed these findings with the exception of more severe injuries for the 30 to 59 age range and impact speed. The analysis failed in these 2 cases. Restraint usage offered the greatest protective effect (OR 0.37). Lesser protective effects were noted with rear seat occupancy (OR 0.43) and age < 13 years (OR 0.77). More severe injuries were predicted by driver intoxication (OR 2.5), and age > 60 years (OR 1.25). In our rural population, RSOs sustain less severe injuries than FSOs. Restraint usage and sober drivers provide a greater protective effect however. Seat location does not replace restraint usage or sobriety.
关于后排乘客(RSOs)受伤情况在文献中鲜有系统研究。过去的研究主要集中在急诊科呈现的损伤模式、安全带使用和损伤的各个方面,或者特定的后排乘客群体。这是对后排乘客损伤严重程度的首次系统分析。涉及机动车碰撞事故(MVCs)的后排乘客所受损伤的严重程度与同一碰撞事故中的前排乘客(FSOs)相当。研究地点是北卡罗来纳州农村地区的一家急诊科,该县唯一的医院对患者进行评估。研究设计为对1988年和1989年北卡罗来纳州皮特县发生的所有涉及后排乘客的机动车碰撞事故进行为期两年的回顾性研究。以损伤严重程度评分(ISS)作为因变量进行了Wilcoxon秩和检验和逻辑回归分析。346起碰撞事故涉及367辆载有后排乘客的车辆和1273名乘客,其中222名患者被送往医院。未系安全带的乘客(ISS为1.87,而系安全带的为0.51)、由酒后驾车司机驾驶车辆中的乘客(4.04对0.73)、年龄在30至59岁之间的乘客(1.06对0.65)以及前排乘客(1.04对0.85)的ISS更高(Wilcoxon秩和检验P <.0002)。逻辑回归分析证实了这些发现,但30至59岁年龄范围和碰撞速度导致的损伤更为严重这一情况除外。在这两种情况下分析失败。安全带的使用提供了最大的保护作用(OR为0.37)。后排就座(OR为0.43)和年龄<13岁(OR为0.77)的保护作用较小。酒后驾车(OR为2.5)和年龄>60岁(OR为1.25)预示着更严重的损伤。在我们的农村人口中,后排乘客所受损伤比前排乘客轻。然而,安全带的使用和清醒的司机提供了更大的保护作用。座位位置并不能取代安全带的使用或清醒驾驶。