Schröter F
Institut für interdisziplinäre medizinische Begutachtung, Landgraf-Karl-Str. 21, 34131, Kassel, Deutschland.
Orthopade. 2010 Mar;39(3):276-84. doi: 10.1007/s00132-009-1545-0.
In 1928, more than 80 years ago, Crowe [6] coined the term "whiplash". Since then, there have been numerous scientific attempts to make a clearly defined profile of this injury. Unfortunately, these have all been unsuccessful. The discussion has not yet progressed beyond hypothetical approaches. The term "whiplash", which is such an impressive concept for those affected, still lacks any content. This gaping hole has provided enough scope for varied hypothetical explanations of why some people who have sustained whiplash, despite an initial absence of objective injury characteristics, develop a subjective complaints profile which becomes chronic! All too often, this profile tends to develop into an escalating third party legal dispute - further supported by sustained medical certificates and quite diverse expert assessments. The present article discusses the most important of these hypotheses and their historical origins. Furthermore, against the background of legally substantiated evidence and proven pathophysiological findings of healing, the article will consider the issue of causality from a sober and analytical perspective.
80多年前的1928年,克罗 [6] 创造了 “挥鞭伤” 这个术语。从那时起,人们进行了无数次科学尝试,试图对这种损伤做出明确界定。不幸的是,这些尝试都没有成功。讨论尚未超越假设性的方法。“挥鞭伤” 这个术语对受害者来说是个令人印象深刻的概念,但仍然缺乏实质内容。这个巨大的空白为各种关于为什么一些遭受挥鞭伤的人尽管最初没有客观损伤特征,却会出现主观症状并发展为慢性症状的假设性解释提供了足够的空间!这种情况常常演变成不断升级的第三方法律纠纷,持续的医疗证明和各种各样的专家评估进一步助长了这种纠纷。本文讨论了这些假设中最重要的几个及其历史渊源。此外,在有法律依据的证据和已证实的病理生理愈合结果的背景下,本文将从冷静和分析的角度考虑因果关系问题。