Saternus K S
Z Rechtsmed. 1982;88(1-2):1-11. doi: 10.1007/BF00200729.
Despite many attempts it has so far not been possible to establish a uniform application of the term "whiplash injury" either for diagnostics, therapy, or medical reports. To obtain a clear, functionally based definition, the most frequently used formulations are compared, taking into account anatomic and mechanical aspects in addition. Whiplash injury is separated from hyperextension injury ("snap" trauma of the cervical spine), even though overlaps in the lesion picture are possible. In the definition suggested, invariable linkage to rear-end collision is dispensed with. Instead, it is emphasized that this accident mechanism is frequent, but can also be substituted. In contrast to other definitions, special emphasis is laid on the biphasic course since a substantial traumatization is to be assumed to occur from the secondary movement. This second movement does not by any means proceed with low energy, but its determined by the mass contraction of the muscle group subject to primary abrupt overextension with their synergists. On the basis of the analysis of the mechanical course and the investigation of a actual accidents, the monosegmental cervical spine injury cannot, therefore, be seen as the characteristic type of damage due to a whiplash injury. Instead of this, the frequent occurrence of multiple injuries is pointed out.
尽管进行了多次尝试，但迄今为止，无论是在诊断、治疗还是医学报告中，都无法对“挥鞭样损伤”这一术语进行统一应用。为了获得一个清晰的、基于功能的定义，我们对最常用的表述进行了比较，同时还考虑了解剖学和力学方面的因素。尽管损伤表现可能存在重叠，但挥鞭样损伤与颈椎过伸损伤（颈椎“弹响”创伤）是分开的。在建议的定义中，不再将其与追尾碰撞必然联系在一起。相反，强调这种事故机制很常见，但也可能被其他情况替代。与其他定义不同的是，特别强调了双相过程，因为假定二次运动中会发生实质性创伤。这种二次运动绝非低能量进行，而是由遭受原发性突然过度伸展的肌肉群及其协同肌的质量收缩所决定。基于对力学过程的分析和对实际事故的调查，因此，单节段颈椎损伤不能被视为挥鞭样损伤的特征性损伤类型。相反，指出了多处损伤的频繁发生。
