Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Canada; Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, University of British Columbia, Canada; Orthopaedic and Injury Biomechanics Group, University of British Columbia, Canada.
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; International Collaboration on Repair Discoveries, University of British Columbia, Canada; Orthopaedic and Injury Biomechanics Group, University of British Columbia, Canada.
Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Sep;70:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.016. Epub 2014 Mar 28.
Cycling is a popular form of recreation and method of commuting with clear health benefits. However, cycling is not without risk. In Canada, cycling injuries are more common than in any other summer sport; and according to the US National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration, 52,000 cyclists were injured in the US in 2010. Head injuries account for approximately two-thirds of hospital admissions and three-quarters of fatal injuries among injured cyclists. In many jurisdictions and across all age levels, helmets have been adopted to mitigate risk of serious head injuries among cyclists and the majority of epidemiological literature suggests that helmets effectively reduce risk of injury. Critics have raised questions over the actual efficacy of helmets by pointing to weaknesses in existing helmet epidemiology including selection bias and lack of appropriate control for the type of impact sustained by the cyclist and the severity of the head impact. These criticisms demonstrate the difficulty in conducting epidemiology studies that will be regarded as definitive and the need for complementary biomechanical studies where confounding factors can be adequately controlled. In the bicycle helmet context, there is a paucity of biomechanical data comparing helmeted to unhelmeted head impacts and, to our knowledge, there is no data of this type available with contemporary helmets. In this research, our objective was to perform biomechanical testing of paired helmeted and unhelmeted head impacts using a validated anthropomorphic test headform and a range of drop heights between 0.5m and 3.0m, while measuring headform acceleration and Head Injury Criterion (HIC). In the 2m (6.3m/s) drops, the middle of our drop height range, the helmet reduced peak accelerations from 824g (unhelmeted) to 181g (helmeted) and HIC was reduced from 9667 (unhelmeted) to 1250 (helmeted). At realistic impact speeds of 5.4m/s (1.5m drop) and 6.3m/s (2.0m drop), bicycle helmets changed the probability of severe brain injury from extremely likely (99.9% risk at both 5.4 and 6.3m/s) to unlikely (9.3% and 30.6% risk at 1.5m and 2.0m drops respectively). These biomechanical results for acceleration and HIC, and the corresponding results for reduced risk of severe brain injury show that contemporary bicycle helmets are highly effective at reducing head injury metrics and the risk for severe brain injury in head impacts characteristic of bicycle crashes.
自行车运动是一种流行的娱乐和通勤方式,对健康有明显的益处。然而,自行车运动并非没有风险。在加拿大,自行车受伤比任何其他夏季运动都更为常见;根据美国国家公路交通安全管理局的数据,2010 年美国有 52000 名骑自行车的人受伤。头部受伤约占住院人数的三分之二,也是受伤自行车运动员中四分之三的致命伤。在许多司法管辖区和所有年龄段,头盔都被采用来减轻自行车运动员头部严重受伤的风险,大多数流行病学文献表明头盔能有效地降低受伤风险。批评者对头盔的实际功效提出了质疑,他们指出现有的头盔流行病学研究存在缺陷,包括选择偏差和缺乏对骑自行车者所受冲击类型和头部冲击严重程度的适当控制。这些批评表明,进行被认为是明确的流行病学研究存在困难,并且需要进行补充生物力学研究,在这些研究中可以充分控制混杂因素。在自行车头盔的背景下,比较头盔和无头盔头部冲击的生物力学数据很少,据我们所知,使用现代头盔没有这种类型的数据。在这项研究中,我们的目标是使用经过验证的拟人测试头型和 0.5 米至 3.0 米之间的一系列下落高度,对成对的头盔和无头盔头部冲击进行生物力学测试,同时测量头型加速度和头部损伤准则(HIC)。在 2 米(6.3 米/秒)的下落中,是我们下落高度范围的中间值,头盔将峰值加速度从 824g(无头盔)降低到 181g(有头盔),HIC 从 9667(无头盔)降低到 1250(有头盔)。在 5.4 米/秒(1.5 米下落)和 6.3 米/秒(2.0 米下落)的现实冲击速度下,自行车头盔将严重脑损伤的可能性从极有可能(5.4 和 6.3 米/秒的风险均为 99.9%)变为不太可能(1.5 米和 2.0 米下落时的风险分别为 9.3%和 30.6%)。这些关于加速度和 HIC 的生物力学结果,以及严重脑损伤风险降低的相应结果表明,现代自行车头盔在降低与自行车事故特征相关的头部冲击中的头部损伤指标和严重脑损伤风险方面非常有效。