Manohar M Panjabi1, Adam M Pearson, Shigeki Ito, Paul C Ivancic, Jaw-Lin Wang. 1. Biomechanics Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar St., P.O. Box 208071,New Haven, CT 06520-8071, USA. manohar.panjabi@yale.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a new method to describe cervical spine curvature and evaluate the potential for injury in the upper and lower cervical spine during simulated whiplash. DESIGN: A method was developed to integrate the upper and lower cervical spine rotations and describe the spine curvature. BACKGROUND: In vivo and in vitro whiplash simulations have documented the development of an S-shape curvature with simultaneous upper cervical spine flexion and lower cervical spine extension immediately following rear-impact. Investigators have hypothesized that the injury potential is highest during the S-shape phase. However, little data exist on the spine curvature during whiplash and its relation to spine injury. METHODS: A biofidelic model and a bench-top whiplash apparatus were used in an incremental rear-impact protocol (maximum 8 g) to simulate whiplash of increasing severity. To describe the spine curvature, the upper and lower cervical spine rotations were normalized to corresponding physiological limits. RESULTS: Average peak lower cervical spine extension first exceeded the physiological limits (P<0.05) at a horizontal T1 acceleration of 5 g. Average peak upper cervical spine extension exceeded the physiological limit at 8 g, while peak upper cervical spine flexion never exceeded the physiological limit. In the S-shape phase, lower cervical spine extension reached 84% of peak extension during whiplash. CONCLUSIONS: Both the upper and lower cervical spine are at risk for extension injury during rear-impact. Flexion injury is unlikely.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a new method to describe cervical spine curvature and evaluate the potential for injury in the upper and lower cervical spine during simulated whiplash. DESIGN: A method was developed to integrate the upper and lower cervical spine rotations and describe the spine curvature. BACKGROUND: In vivo and in vitro whiplash simulations have documented the development of an S-shape curvature with simultaneous upper cervical spine flexion and lower cervical spine extension immediately following rear-impact. Investigators have hypothesized that the injury potential is highest during the S-shape phase. However, little data exist on the spine curvature during whiplash and its relation to spine injury. METHODS: A biofidelic model and a bench-top whiplash apparatus were used in an incremental rear-impact protocol (maximum 8 g) to simulate whiplash of increasing severity. To describe the spine curvature, the upper and lower cervical spine rotations were normalized to corresponding physiological limits. RESULTS: Average peak lower cervical spine extension first exceeded the physiological limits (P<0.05) at a horizontal T1 acceleration of 5 g. Average peak upper cervical spine extension exceeded the physiological limit at 8 g, while peak upper cervical spine flexion never exceeded the physiological limit. In the S-shape phase, lower cervical spine extension reached 84% of peak extension during whiplash. CONCLUSIONS: Both the upper and lower cervical spine are at risk for extension injury during rear-impact. Flexion injury is unlikely.
Authors: Paul C Ivancic; Manohar M Panjabi; Yasuhiro Tominaga; Adam M Pearson; S Elena Gimenez; Travis G Maak Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Calvin Kuo; Jodie Sheffels; Michael Fanton; Ina Bianca Yu; Rosa Hamalainen; David Camarillo Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.118
Authors: Michele Curatolo; Nikolai Bogduk; Paul C Ivancic; Samuel A McLean; Gunter P Siegmund; Beth A Winkelstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: James M Elliott; Sudarshan Dayanidhi; Charles Hazle; Mark A Hoggarth; Jacob McPherson; Cheryl L Sparks; Kenneth A Weber Journal: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.751
Authors: Geoff M Schneider; Ashley D Smith; Allen Hooper; Paul Stratford; Kathryn J Schneider; Michael D Westaway; Bevan Frizzell; Lee Olson Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2010-02-09 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: F de Bruin; S Ter Horst; R van den Berg; M de Hooge; F van Gaalen; K M Fagerli; R Landewé; M van Oosterhout; J L Bloem; D van der Heijde; M Reijnierse Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2015-12-04 Impact factor: 2.199