MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031082675

Exploring Low to Moderate Velocity Motor Vehicle Rear Impacts as a Viable Injury Mechanism in the Lumbar Spine

2020· dissertation· en· W3031082675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kayla M. Fewster

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Physical medicine and rehabilitationLumbar spineMedicinePsychologyEngineeringSurgeryPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological research suggests that up to 50% of individuals involved in low speed rear impact collisions develop acute onset low back pain. Given that little information is known about the low back injury mechanisms as a result of these collisions the overarching goal of this thesis was to explore low to moderate velocity rear-end collisions as a potential low back injury mechanism. Using a combination of data mining, in vivo and in vitro mechanical testing of porcine functional spinal units, the global purposes of this thesis were to (i) explore the types of low to moderate velocity collisions that frequently result in claims of low back pain and injury (ii) explore the influence of low velocity rear impact collisions on peak in vivo joint loading, occupant pain reporting and passive tissue response of the lumbar spine, and (iii) characterize the effects of these mechanical exposures and explore facet joint capsule injury as a potential source of injury and pain generating pathways following low to moderate severity impacts. In-line with these global purposes, four independent studies were conducted, each with their own focused objectives. \n \nStudy I - Exploring Low Velocity Collision Characteristics Associated with Claimed Low Back Pain \nBackground: Up to fifty percent of individuals involved in low to moderate velocity collisions report low back pain. However, our understanding of the specific collision or occupant characteristics that result in such claims of low back pain remains limited. \nObjectives: The primary objective of this study was to define the circumstances of low velocity motor vehicle collisions that result in litigation in Ontario with claims of low back injury. \nMethods: Data for this investigation were obtained from a forensic engineering firm based in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The database was searched and only cases with an evaluation of the injuries sustained in passenger vehicle to vehicle collisions, with a collision severity of 24 km/hour or less were included in this analysis. Each identified case was reviewed for collision characteristics, pre-existing medical conditions and injuries claimed. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD and ranges) across low back injury claims were computed for documented variables. \nResults: Out the 83 cases reviewed, 77% involved a claim of low back injury. Specific to those who claimed low back injury, examination of the medical history revealed that pre-existing low back pain (LBP) or evidence of lumbar disc degeneration were particularly common with 63% of claimants either having had a history of LBP or evidence of lumbar disc degeneration, or both. Of all low back injury claims, 97% were accompanied by a whiplash and/or whiplash associated disorder claim. For low back injury claims, a rear-end impact was the most common configuration (70% of all low back injury claims involved a rear-end collision). The majority of all low back injury claimants experienced a change in velocity of 13 km/hour or less (69%), with 42% of all low back injury claims falling between collision severities of 10 – 12 km/hour. \nConclusions: Results indicate that rear-end collision severities of 10 – 12 km/hour appear to be particularly common with respect to low back injury reporting; more severe collisions were not associated with greater low back injury reporting. This result contrasts with previously published neck injury risk data, which demonstrated the risk of neck injury symptom reporting increases with collision severity. Evidence of lumbar disc degeneration was particularly common across claimants with low back injury claims. \n \nStudy II - Characterizing Trunk Muscle Activations During Simulated Low Speed Rear Impact Collisions \nBackground: The internal forces generated by the musculature of the lumbar region create most of the mechanical load placed on the spine. Thus, despite the anticipated low external forces generated between the occupant and the automobile seatback during a low speed rear impact collision, increased muscle tension may influence the resultant peak joint loads experienced in the lumbar spine. Consequently, the risk of low back injury may be altered by muscle activation. \nObjective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the activation profiles of muscles surrounding the lumbar spine during unanticipated and braced simulated rear-end collisions. \nMethods: Twenty-two low speed sled tests were performed on eleven human volunteers (△v = 4 km/h). Each volunteer was exposed to one unanticipated impact and one braced impact. Accelerometers were mounted on the test sled and participants’ low back. Six bilateral channels of surface electromyography (EMG) were collected from the trunk during impact trials. Peak lumbar accelerations, peak muscle activation delay, muscle onset time and peak EMG magnitudes, normalized to maximum voluntary contractions (MVC), were examined across test conditions. \nResults: While not statistically significant, bracing for impact tended to reduce peak lumbar acceleration in the initial rearward impact phase of the occupant’s motion by approximately 15%. The only trunk muscles with peak activations exceeding 10% MVC during the unanticipated impact were the thoracic erector spinae. Time of peak muscle activation was slightly longer for the unanticipated condition (unanticipated = 296 ms; braced = 241 ms). \nConclusions: Results from this investigation demonstrate that during an unanticipated low speed rear-end collision, the peak activation of muscles in the lumbar spine are low in magnitude. As such, muscle activation likely has minimal contribution to the internal joint loads that are experienced in the lumbar intervertebral joints during low speed rear impact collisions. \n \nStudy III - Characterizing In Vivo Mechanical Exposures of the Lumbar Spine During Simulated Low Velocity Rear Impact Collisions \nBackground: Historically, there has been a lack of focus on the lumbar spine during rear impacts because of the perception that the automotive seat back should protect the lumbar spine from injury. As a result, there have been no studies involving human volunteers to address the risk of low back injury in low velocity rear impact collisions. \nObjectives: The primary objectives of this study were to explore lumbar kinematics and joint reaction forces in human volunteers during simulated rear impact collisions and to examine the influence of lumbar support on the peak motion and forces experienced in the lumbar spine. A secondary objective was to evaluate lumped passive stiffness changes and low back pain reporting after a simulated rear impact collision \nMethods: Twenty-four participants (12 male, 12 female) were recruited. A custom-built crash sled was used to simulate unanticipated rear impact collisions, with a change in velocity of approximately 8 km/h. Randomized collisions were completed with and without lumbar support. Measures of passive stiffness and flexion-relaxation-ratio (FRR) were obtained prior to impact (Pre), immediately post impact (Post) and 24 hours post impact (Post-24). LBP reporting was monitored over the next 24 hours leading up to the final Post-24 measures. For collision simulations inverse dynamics analyses were conducted, and outputs were used to generate estimates of peak L4/L5 joint compression and shear. From the passive trials, lumbar flexion/extension moment-angle curves were generated to quantify time-varying changes in the passive stiffness of the lumbar spine, Post and Post-24 relative to Pre. FRRs were computed as the ratio of thoracic erector spinae and lumbar erector spinae muscle activation in an upright posture to muscle activation in a flexed position \nResults: Average [± standard deviation] peak L4/L5 compression and shear reaction forces were not significantly different without lumbar support (Compression = 498.22 N [±178.0]; Shear = 302.2 N [± 98.5]) compared to with lumbar support (Compression = 484.5 N [±151.1]; Shear = 291.3 N [±176.8]). Lumbar flexion angle at the point of peak shear was 36 degrees [±12] without and 33 degrees [±11] with lumbar support, respectively, with 0 degrees being the lumbar posture in upright standing. No participants developed clinically significant levels of LBP after impact. Time was a significant factor for the length of the low stiffness flexion and extension zone (p = 0.049; p = 0.035), the length of the low stiffness zone was longer in the Post and Post-24 trial for low stiffness flexion and longer in the Post-24 for low stiffness extension. \nConclusions: Findings demonstrate that during a laboratory-simulation of an unanticipated 8 km/hour rear-impact collision, young healthy adults do not develop LBP. Lumbar support did not significantly influence the estimated L4/L5 joint reaction forces. Changes in the low stiffness portion of the passive flexion/extension curves were observed following impact and persisted for 24 hours. Changes in passive stiffness may lead to changes in the loads and load distributions within the passive structures such as the ligaments and intervertebral discs following impacts. \n \nStudy IV - Exploring the Interaction Effects of Impact Severity and Posture on Vertebral Joint Mechanics \nBackground: To date, no in vitro studies have been conducted to explore lumbar soft tissue injury potential and altered mechanical properties from exposure to impact forces. Typically, after a motor vehicle collision, the cause of a reported acute onset of low back pain is difficult to identify with potential soft tissue strain injury sites including the facet joint and highly innervated facet joint capsule ligament (FCL). \nObjectives: The purpose of this investigation was to quantify intervertebral translation and facet joint capsule strain under varying postures and impact severities. A secondary objective

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207