Paul C. Ivancic

Synopsis: Head and spinal injuries commonly occur during motor vehicle crashes (MVCs). The goal of this clinical commentary is to discuss real-life versus simulated MVCs and to present clinical, biomechanical, and epidemiological evidence of MVC-related injury mechanisms. It will also address how this knowledge may guide and inform the design of injury mitigation devices and assist in clinical decision making. Evidence indicates that there exists no universal injury tolerance applicable to the entire population of the occupants of MVCs. Injuries sustained by occupants depend on a number of factors, including occupant characteristics (age, height, weight, sex, bone mineral density, and pre-existing medical and musculoskeletal conditions), pre-MVC factors (awareness of the impending crash, occupant position, usage of and position of the seatbelt and head restraint, and vehicle specifications), and MVC-related factors (crash orientation, vehicle dynamics, type of active or passive safety systems, and occupant kinematic response). Injuries resulting from an MVC occur due to blunt impact and/or inertial loading. An S-shaped curvature of the cervical spine and associated injurious strains have been documented during rear-, frontal-, and side-impact MVCs. Data on the injury mechanism and the quantification of spinal instability guide and inform the emergent and subsequent conservative or surgical care. Such care may require determining optimal patient positioning during transport, which injuries may be treated conservatively, whether reduction should be performed, optimal patient positioning intraoperatively, and whether bracing should be worn prior to and/or following surgery. The continued improvement of traditional injury mitigation systems, such as seats, seatbelts, airbags, and head restraints, together with research of newer collision-avoidance technologies, will lead to safer motor vehicles and ultimately more effective injury management strategies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(10):826–833. Epub 3 Sep 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6716

We report a case of a young male athlete who sustained a three column displaced teardrop fracture of the C5 vertebra due to a head-first impact in hockey, suffered neurapraxia, yet made full neurological recovery. This full recovery was in sharp contrast to multiple case series which reported permanent quadriplegia in the vast majority of teardrop fracture patients. We investigate the etiology and biomechanical mechanisms of injury. Admission imaging revealed the teardrop fracture which consisted of: a frontal plane fracture which separated an anterior quadrilateral-shaped fragment from the posterior vertebral body; a vertical fracture of the posterior vertebral body in the sagittal plane; and incomplete fractures of the neural arch that initiated superiorly at the anterior aspect of the spinous process and left lamina adjacent to the superior facet. Epidural hematoma in the region of the C5 vertebra was observed in addition to disc and ligamentous disruptions at C4-5 and C5-6. Our patient was ultimately treated surgically with anterior fusion from C4 through C6 and subsequently with bilateral posterior fusion at C5-6. The injuries were caused by high-energy axial compression with the neck in a pre-flexed posture. The first fracture event consisted of the anterior vertebral body fragment being sheared off of the posterior fragment under the compression load due in part to the sagittal plane concavity of the C5 inferior endplate. The etiology of the vertical fracture of the posterior vertebral body fragment in the sagittal plane was consistent with a previously described hypothesis of the mechanistic injury events. First, the C4-5 disc height decreased under load which increased its hoop stress. Next, this increased hoop stress transferred lateral forces to the C5 uncinate processes which caused their outward expansion. Finally, the outward expansion of the uncinate processes caused the left and right sides of the vertebral body to split and spread. Evidence in support of this mechanistic event sequence was provided by the neural arch fractures which initiated superiorly, average angulation of the C5 uncinate processes, and similar well-established mechanisms causing vertical fractures at other spinal regions. Our case study and analyses provide insight into the etiology of the specific teardrop fracture patterns observed clinically.

“Plough” fracture, in which the odontoid ploughs through and causes a high-energy shear fracture of the anterior arch of the atlas, has been documented in clinical case studies and classified as clinically unstable. Our objectives were to develop a biomechanical model to simulate atlantal plough fracture and investigate injury mechanisms. Horizontally aligned head impacts into a padded barrier were simulated using a human upper cervical spine specimen (occiput through C3) mounted to a surrogate torso mass on a sled and carrying a surrogate head. We divided 13 specimens into 3 groups based upon head-impact location: upper forehead in the midline, upper lateral side of the forehead, and upper lateral side of the head. Post-impact fluoroscopy and anatomical dissection documented the injuries. Time-history biomechanical responses were determined for neck loads, accelerations, and motions. A single specimen sustained a plough fracture variant to the atlantal anterior arch due to impact to the upper forehead and continued forward torso momentum. Horizontal velocity of C3 at the time of forehead impact was 2.7 m/s. This specimen had an anteriorly displaced fracture fragment consisting of the inferior portion of the atlantal anterior arch together with multiple complete fractures of the axis. Peak force occurred first at the impact barrier (1,903.0 N; 47 ms) followed by the neck (1,715.9 N; 58 ms). Forward translation ended at 48 ms for the head and 72 ms for the C3 vertebra. Our present results, though preliminary, indicate that plough fracture of the anterior arch of the atlas likely occurred immediately following or simultaneously with associated axis fractures at approximately 58 ms following impact to the upper forehead. The present injury response data highlighted the role of load transfer from torso momentum to the upper cervical spine to produce anterior shear force and forward displacement of the dens and bony fragment of the anterior arch of the atlas relative to the C1 ring.

Study Design: In vitro biomechanical study. Objective: To investigate the biomechanics of thoracolumbar burst and Chance-type fractures during fall from height. Methods: Our model consisted of a three-vertebra human thoracolumbar specimen ( n = 4) stabilized with muscle force replication and mounted within an impact dummy. Each specimen was subjected to a single fall from an average height of 2.1 m with average velocity at impact of 6.4 m/s. Biomechanical responses were determined using impact load data combined with high-speed movie analyses. Injuries to the middle vertebra of each spinal segment were evaluated using imaging and dissection. Results: Average peak compressive forces occurred within 10 milliseconds of impact and reached 40.3 kN at the ground, 7.1 kN at the lower vertebra, and 3.6 kN at the upper vertebra. Subsequently, average peak flexion (55.0 degrees) and tensile forces (0.7 kN upper vertebra, 0.3 kN lower vertebra) occurred between 43.0 and 60.0 milliseconds. The middle vertebra of all specimens sustained pedicle and endplate fractures with comminution, bursting, and reduced height of its vertebral body. Chance-type fractures were observed consisting of a horizontal split fracture through the laminae and pedicles extending anteriorly through the vertebral body. Conclusions: We hypothesize that the compression fractures of the pedicles and vertebral body together with burst fracture occurred at the time of peak spinal compression, 10 milliseconds. Subsequently, the onset of Chance-type fracture occurred at 20 milliseconds through the already fractured and weakened pedicles and vertebral body due to flexion-distraction and a forward shifting spinal axis of rotation.

Study Design. In vitro biomechanical study. Objective. Our objective was to determine the effectiveness of cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses for stabilizing clinically relevant, experimentally produced cervical spine injuries. Summary of Background Data. Most previous in vitro studies of cervical orthoses used a simplified injury model with all ligaments transected at a single spinal level, which differs from real-life neck injuries. Human volunteer studies are limited to measuring only sagittal motions or 3-dimensional motions only of the head or 1 or 2 spinal levels. Methods. Three-plane flexibility tests were performed to evaluate 2 cervical collars (Vista Collar and Vista Multipost Collar) and 2 cervicothoracic orthoses (Vista TS and Vista TS4) using a skull-neck-thorax model with 8 injured cervical spine specimens (manufacturer of orthoses: Aspen Medical Products Inc, Irvine, CA). The injuries consisted of flexion-compression at the lower cervical spine and extension-compression at superior spinal levels. Pair-wise repeated measures analysis of variance (P < 0.05) and Bonferroni post hoc tests determined significant differences in average range of motions of the head relative to the base, C7 or T1, among experimental conditions. Results. All orthoses significantly reduced unrestricted head/base flexion and extension. The orthoses allowed between 8.4% and 25.8% of unrestricted head/base motion in flexion/extension, 57.8% to 75.5% in axial rotation, and 53.8% to 73.7% in lateral bending. The average percentages of unrestricted motion allowed by the Vista Collar, Vista Multipost Collar, Vista TS, and Vista TS4 were: 14.0, 9.7, 6.1, and 4.7, respectively, for middle cervical spine extension and 13.2, 11.8, 3.3, and 0.4, respectively, for lower cervical spine flexion. Conclusion. Successive increases in immobilization were observed from Vista Collar to Vista Multipost Collar, Vista TS, and Vista TS4 in extension at the injured middle cervical spine and in flexion at the injured lower cervical spine. Our results may assist clinicians in selecting the most appropriate orthosis based upon patient-specific cervical spine injuries.