Injury Biomechanics Research Center, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Traffic Inj Prev. 2021;22(sup1):S87-S92. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2021.1967337. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
Previous studies have indicated that gap between the seatbelt and torso (reduced belt torso contact) for children on belt-positioning booster seats (BPBs) may lead to less torso engagement and increased likelihood of shoulder belt slip-off during evasive vehicle maneuvers, potentially increasing injury risk during crashes. However, current BPB belt fit measures do not quantify belt gap and may not be able to fully discriminate between designs which provide good vs. poor dynamic outcomes. The goal of this study was to evaluate both novel (belt gap characteristics) and conventional measures of seatbelt fit for BPB-seated children. Ten BPBs and three seatbelt anchor locations were investigated. Fifty volunteers (4-14 years) were recruited and each evaluated on six unique combinations of BPB and seatbelt anchor location on a vehicle rear seat in a laboratory setting. A 3 D coordinate measurement system quantified positions of anatomic, seatbelt, BPB, and vehicle reference points. Novel belt gap (gap size, length, location, and percent torso contact) and conventional belt fit (position of belt on shoulder and pelvis) metrics were calculated using anatomic and seatbelt landmarks. Variation in belt fit and belt gap outcomes due to BPB, seatbelt anchor location, and anthropometry were investigated. BPBs produced significantly different outcomes, while seatbelt anchor location did not. BPBs with features that directly routed the lower portion of the shoulder belt more forward on the buckle side produced the largest (29.3 ± 12.6 mm) and longest (106.9 ± 68.2 mm) belt gap on average, while BPBs that pulled the belt less forward or did not directly route the belt produced the smallest (13.9 ± 6.7 mm) and shortest (16.9 ± 33.9 mm) gap on average. Belt gap outcomes were not strongly correlated with conventional belt fit metrics, indicating that evaluation of belt gap may provide additional insight when attempting to discriminate between BPBs which provide good vs. poor seatbelt engagement during vehicle maneuvers and crashes. This is the first study to evaluate belt gap characteristics for BPB-seated children. Results suggest that belt fit and belt gap are influenced by BPB design, particularly lower shoulder belt routings, and may have implications for belt engagement during dynamic events.
先前的研究表明，对于使用安全带定位增高垫（BPB）的儿童，安全带与躯干之间的间隙（减少安全带与躯干的接触）可能导致躯干的接触减少，以及在躲避车辆行驶时肩带滑出的可能性增加，从而在碰撞中增加受伤的风险。然而，目前的 BPB 安全带贴合度测量方法无法量化安全带间隙，并且可能无法完全区分提供良好和不良动态结果的设计。本研究的目的是评估用于 BPB 座椅儿童的新型（安全带间隙特征）和传统的安全带贴合度测量方法。研究了 10 个 BPB 和 3 个安全带锚固位置。招募了 50 名志愿者（4-14 岁），并在实验室环境中，在车辆后排座椅上的六个独特的 BPB 和安全带锚固位置组合上对每个志愿者进行评估。使用三维坐标测量系统量化解剖学、安全带、BPB 和车辆参考点的位置。使用解剖学和安全带标志计算了新型安全带间隙（间隙大小、长度、位置和躯干接触百分比）和传统的安全带贴合度（肩带和骨盆上的安全带位置）指标。研究了 BPB、安全带锚固位置和人体测量学对安全带贴合度和安全带间隙结果的影响。BPB 产生了明显不同的结果，而安全带锚固位置则没有。具有直接将下部肩带向前引导到带扣侧的特征的 BPB 平均产生最大（29.3±12.6 毫米）和最长（106.9±68.2 毫米）的安全带间隙，而那些较少向前拉动安全带或不直接引导安全带的 BPB 则产生最小（13.9±6.7 毫米）和最短（16.9±33.9 毫米）的间隙。安全带间隙结果与传统的安全带贴合度指标没有很强的相关性，这表明在试图区分在车辆行驶和碰撞过程中提供良好和不良安全带贴合度的 BPB 时，评估安全带间隙可能会提供额外的见解。这是第一项评估 BPB 座椅儿童安全带间隙特征的研究。结果表明，安全带贴合度和安全带间隙受 BPB 设计的影响，特别是下部肩带的布线，并且可能对动态事件中的安全带贴合度产生影响。
