Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, Fort Sam Houston, TX, United States.
Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium, Fort Sam Houston, TX, United States.
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):545-550. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.09.011. Epub 2017 Sep 12.
Literature predating routine availability of airbags reported an association between seatbelt signs and internal injuries. We measured this association among patients involved in motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) with airbag deployment.
We conducted a retrospective cohort study by chart review of all MVC patients presenting to our Emergency Department (ED) during 1 January 2008-30 September 2015. We included all adult MVC patients in the driver or front passenger seats with both shoulder and lap seatbelts and airbag deployment. Two trained chart abstractors recorded data regarding restraints and airbag deployment. We obtained all other data via electronic medical record abstraction including demographics, injuries, and survival. We compared the prevalence of cervicothoracic and intra-abdominopelvic injuries between patients with a documented seatbelt sign versus no seatbelt sign using a logistic regression model.
Of 1379 MVC patients, 350 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 138 (39.4%) had a seatbelt sign. The prevalence of cervicothoracic injury was higher among subjects with a documented seatbelt sign (54.3% versus 42.9%, p=0.036) Seatbelt sign predicted cervicothoracic injury with a positive likelihood ratio of 1.3 (95% CI 1.0-1.7) and negative likelihood ratio of 0.8 (95% CI 0.7-1.0). The odds ratio of cervicothoracic injury among patients with a seatbelt sign versus no seatbelt sign was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.02-2.46) in the logistic regression model. There was no association between seatbelt sign and intra-abdominopelvic injury (p=0.418).
In the setting of airbag deployment, there is an association between seatbelt sign and cervicothoracic injury but not intra-abdominopelvic injury.
在安全气囊常规使用之前的文献报道了安全带提示标志与内部损伤之间的关联。我们测量了在配备安全气囊的机动车事故(MVC)中发生安全带提示标志的患者中的这种关联。
我们通过对 2008 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 9 月 30 日期间在我们的急诊科就诊的所有 MVC 患者的病历回顾进行了回顾性队列研究。我们纳入了在司机或前排乘客座位上,同时使用肩带和腰带安全带且配备安全气囊的所有成年 MVC 患者。两名经过培训的病历摘要记录员记录了安全带提示标志和安全气囊部署情况的数据。我们通过电子病历摘要获得了包括人口统计学、损伤和生存情况在内的所有其他数据。我们使用逻辑回归模型比较了有记录的安全带提示标志与无安全带提示标志的患者的颈胸和腹盆腔损伤的发生率。
在 1379 名 MVC 患者中,有 350 名符合纳入标准。其中,有 138 名(39.4%)有安全带提示标志。有记录的安全带提示标志的患者颈胸损伤的发生率更高(54.3%对 42.9%,p=0.036)。安全带提示标志预示颈胸损伤的阳性似然比为 1.3(95%CI 1.0-1.7),阴性似然比为 0.8(95%CI 0.7-1.0)。在 logistic 回归模型中,安全带提示标志的患者与无安全带提示标志的患者相比,颈胸损伤的比值比为 1.58(95%置信区间 1.02-2.46)。安全带提示标志与腹盆腔损伤之间无关联(p=0.418)。
在配备安全气囊的情况下,安全带提示标志与颈胸损伤之间存在关联,但与腹盆腔损伤无关。