Looking Away From Whiplash: Effect of Head Rotation in Rear Impacts

Study Design. Twenty healthy volunteers in a laboratory were subjected to rear-end impacts 4.4, 7.9, 10.9, and 13.1 m/s2 acceleration, with head rotation to the right and left. Objective. The purpose of this study was to determine the response of the cervical muscles to increasing low-velocity rear impacts when the head is rotated at the time of impact. Summary of Background Data. A previous study of rear impacts with head in neutral posture suggests that the burden of impact is borne primarily by the sternocleidomastoid muscles bilaterally. To improve automobile designs to prevent whiplash injury, we need to understand the response of the cervical muscles to whiplash-type perturbations in less-than-ideal conditions, such as when the head is rotated to the right and left at the time of rear-end impact. Methods. Triaxial accelerometers recorded the acceleration of the sled, torso at the shoulder level, and head of the participant, while bilateral electromyograms of the sternocleidomastoids, trapezii, and splenii capitis were also recorded. Results. For participants having a rear-end impact, whether having the head rotated to the left or right at the time of impact, the muscle responses increased with increasing levels of acceleration (P < 0·01). The time to onset and time to peak electromyogram for all muscles progressively decreased with increasing levels of acceleration (P < 0·01). Which muscle responded most to a whiplash-type neck perturbation was determined by the direction of head rotation. With the head rotated to the left, the right sternocleidomastoid generated 88% of the maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram (at least triple the response of other muscles). In comparison, the left sternocleidomastoid, both trapezii, and the splenii capitis generated on average only 10% to 30% of the maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram with head rotated to the left. On the other hand, with the head rotated to the right, the left sternocleidomastoid generated 94% of the maximal voluntary contraction electromyogram (again, at least triple the response of other muscles). Conclusions. If the head is rotated out of neutral posture at the time of rear impact, the injury risk tends to be greater for the sternocleidomastoid muscle contralateral to the side of rotation. Measures to prevent whiplash injury may have to account for the asymmetric response because many victims of whiplash are expected to be looking to the left or right at the time of collision.

[1]  Yogesh Narayan,et al.  Electromyographic and Kinematic Exploration of Whiplash-Type Neck Perturbations in Left Lateral Collisions , 2004, Spine.

[2]  Yogesh Narayan,et al.  Analysis of low velocity frontal impacts. , 2003, Clinical biomechanics.

[3]  Yogesh Narayan,et al.  An Electromyographic Study of Low-Velocity Rear-End Impacts , 2002, Spine.

[4]  Yogesh Narayan,et al.  Electromyography of superficial cervical muscles with exertion in the sagittal, coronal and oblique planes , 2002, European Spine Journal.

[5]  S Kumar,et al.  Cervical strength of young adults in sagittal, coronal, and intermediate planes. , 2001, Clinical biomechanics.

[6]  J B Welcher,et al.  Relationships between seat properties and human subject kinematics in rear impact tests. , 2001, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  L Jakobsson,et al.  WHIPS--Volvo's Whiplash Protection Study. , 2000, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[8]  K. Hayashi,et al.  Motion analysis of cervical vertebrae during whiplash loading. , 1999, Spine.

[9]  R P Howard,et al.  Head, neck, and mandible dynamics generated by 'whiplash'. , 1998, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  J. Cholewicki,et al.  Simulation of Whiplash Trauma Using Whole Cervical Spine Specimens , 1998, Spine.

[11]  G P Nielsen,et al.  Human Subject Responses to Repeated Low Speed Impacts Using Utility Vehicles , 1997 .

[12]  Ella Yeung,et al.  ‘Whiplash Injuries’ of the Cervical Spine , 1996 .

[13]  R. P. Howard,et al.  Human head and neck kinematics after low velocity rear-end impacts-understanding "whiplash" , 1995 .

[14]  W. Spitzer,et al.  Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining "whiplash" and its management. , 1995, Spine.

[15]  W Rosenbluth,et al.  Evaluating low-speed rear-end impact severity and resultant occupant stress parameters. , 1994, Journal of forensic sciences.

[16]  T. Asazuma,et al.  X-ray study of the human neck motion due to head inertia loading , 1994 .

[17]  Robert D. Anderson,et al.  Human Occupant Kinematic Response to Low Speed Rear-End Impacts , 1994 .

[18]  G. Siegmund,et al.  Characteristics of Specific Automobile Bumpers in Low-Velocity Impacts , 1994 .

[19]  John B. Bomar,et al.  Comparison of Human and ATD Head Kinematics During Low-Speed Rearend Impacts , 1993 .

[20]  R. P. Howard,et al.  Analysis of Human Test Subject Kinematic Responses to Low Velocity Rear End Impacts , 1993 .

[21]  Judson B. Welcher,et al.  Dynamics of Low Speed Crash Tests with Energy Absorbing Bumpers , 1992 .

[22]  L. M. Patrick,et al.  Strength and response of the human neck , 1971 .

[23]  J. Hundley "Whiplash" injuries of the cervical spine. , 1961, The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society.

[24]  A. D. Ruedemann,et al.  Automobile safety device-headrest to prevent whiplash injury. , 1957, Journal of the American Medical Association.

[25]  J. H. Mathewson,et al.  Controlled automobile rearend collisions, an investigation of related engineering and medical phenomena. , 1955, Canadian services medical journal.

[26]  J. S. Lee,et al.  Cervical electromyographic activity during low-speed rear impact , 1999, European Spine Journal.

[27]  J. B. Wheeler,et al.  Clinical response of human subjects to rear-end automobile collisions. , 1998, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[28]  D H West,et al.  Low speed rear-end collision testing using human subjects , 1993 .