How Well Do Popular Bicycle Helmets Protect from Different Types of Head Injury?

IF 3 2区 医学 Q3 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL Annals of Biomedical Engineering Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1007/s10439-024-03589-8
C. E. Baker, X. Yu, B. Lovell, R. Tan, S. Patel, M. Ghajari
{"title":"How Well Do Popular Bicycle Helmets Protect from Different Types of Head Injury?","authors":"C. E. Baker,&nbsp;X. Yu,&nbsp;B. Lovell,&nbsp;R. Tan,&nbsp;S. Patel,&nbsp;M. Ghajari","doi":"10.1007/s10439-024-03589-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Bicycle helmets are designed to protect against skull fractures and associated focal brain injuries, driven by helmet standards. Another type of head injury seen in injured cyclists is diffuse brain injuries, but little is known about the protection provided by bicycle helmets against these injuries. Here, we examine the performance of modern bicycle helmets in preventing diffuse injuries and skull fractures under impact conditions that represent a range of real-world incidents. We also investigate the effects of helmet technology, price, and mass on protection against these pathologies. 30 most popular helmets among UK cyclists were purchased within 9.99–135.00 GBP price range. Helmets were tested under oblique impacts onto a 45° anvil at 6.5 m/s impact speed and four locations, front, rear, side, and front-side. A new headform, which better represents the average human head’s mass, moments of inertia and coefficient of friction than any other available headforms, was used. We determined peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and BrIC. We also determined the risk of skull fractures based on PLA (linear risk), risk of diffuse brain injuries based on BrIC (rotational risk), and their mean (overall risk). Our results show large variation in head kinematics: PLA (80–213 g), PRV (8.5–29.9 rad/s), PRA (1.6–9.7 krad/s<sup>2</sup>), and BrIC (0.17–0.65). The overall risk varied considerably with a 2.25 ratio between the least and most protective helmet. This ratio was 1.76 for the linear and 4.21 for the rotational risk. Nine best performing helmets were equipped with the rotation management technology MIPS, but not all helmets equipped with MIPS were among the best performing helmets. Our comparison of three tested helmets which have MIPS and no-MIPS versions showed that MIPS reduced rotational kinematics, but not linear kinematics. We found no significant effect of helmet price on exposure-adjusted injury risks. We found that larger helmet mass was associated with higher linear risk. This study highlights the need for a holistic approach, including both rotational and linear head injury metrics and risks, in helmet design and testing. It also highlights the need for providing information about helmet safety to consumers to help them make an informed choice.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7986,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","volume":"52 12","pages":"3326 - 3364"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10439-024-03589-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Biomedical Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-024-03589-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Bicycle helmets are designed to protect against skull fractures and associated focal brain injuries, driven by helmet standards. Another type of head injury seen in injured cyclists is diffuse brain injuries, but little is known about the protection provided by bicycle helmets against these injuries. Here, we examine the performance of modern bicycle helmets in preventing diffuse injuries and skull fractures under impact conditions that represent a range of real-world incidents. We also investigate the effects of helmet technology, price, and mass on protection against these pathologies. 30 most popular helmets among UK cyclists were purchased within 9.99–135.00 GBP price range. Helmets were tested under oblique impacts onto a 45° anvil at 6.5 m/s impact speed and four locations, front, rear, side, and front-side. A new headform, which better represents the average human head’s mass, moments of inertia and coefficient of friction than any other available headforms, was used. We determined peak linear acceleration (PLA), peak rotational acceleration (PRA), peak rotational velocity (PRV), and BrIC. We also determined the risk of skull fractures based on PLA (linear risk), risk of diffuse brain injuries based on BrIC (rotational risk), and their mean (overall risk). Our results show large variation in head kinematics: PLA (80–213 g), PRV (8.5–29.9 rad/s), PRA (1.6–9.7 krad/s2), and BrIC (0.17–0.65). The overall risk varied considerably with a 2.25 ratio between the least and most protective helmet. This ratio was 1.76 for the linear and 4.21 for the rotational risk. Nine best performing helmets were equipped with the rotation management technology MIPS, but not all helmets equipped with MIPS were among the best performing helmets. Our comparison of three tested helmets which have MIPS and no-MIPS versions showed that MIPS reduced rotational kinematics, but not linear kinematics. We found no significant effect of helmet price on exposure-adjusted injury risks. We found that larger helmet mass was associated with higher linear risk. This study highlights the need for a holistic approach, including both rotational and linear head injury metrics and risks, in helmet design and testing. It also highlights the need for providing information about helmet safety to consumers to help them make an informed choice.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
流行的自行车头盔对不同类型的头部伤害有多大保护作用?
根据头盔标准,自行车头盔的设计目的是防止颅骨骨折和相关的局灶性脑损伤。在受伤的骑车者中,另一种头部损伤是弥漫性脑损伤,但人们对自行车头盔对这些损伤的保护作用知之甚少。在此,我们研究了现代自行车头盔在代表一系列真实事故的撞击条件下防止弥漫性损伤和颅骨骨折的性能。我们还研究了头盔技术、价格和质量对防止这些病症的影响。在英国骑自行车的人中,最受欢迎的 30 个头盔的价格在 9.99-135.00 英镑之间。头盔在 6.5 米/秒的撞击速度和四个位置(前方、后方、侧面和前侧)对 45°砧板上的斜撞击进行了测试。我们使用了一种新的头型,这种头型比其他任何可用的头型都更能代表人类头部的平均质量、惯性矩和摩擦系数。我们测定了峰值线性加速度 (PLA)、峰值旋转加速度 (PRA)、峰值旋转速度 (PRV) 和 BrIC。我们还根据 PLA(线性风险)确定了颅骨骨折的风险,根据 BrIC(旋转风险)确定了弥漫性脑损伤的风险,以及它们的平均值(总体风险)。我们的结果表明,头部运动学存在很大差异:PLA (80-213 g)、PRV (8.5-29.9 rad/s)、PRA (1.6-9.7 krad/s2) 和 BrIC (0.17-0.65)。总体风险差别很大,保护性最低和最高的头盔之间的比率为 2.25。线性风险和旋转风险的比率分别为 1.76 和 4.21。9 个性能最好的头盔配备了旋转管理技术 MIPS,但并非所有配备 MIPS 的头盔都是性能最好的头盔。我们对三款测试过的头盔进行了比较,结果显示,MIPS 降低了旋转运动学,但没有降低线性运动学。我们发现头盔价格对暴露调整后的受伤风险没有明显影响。我们发现,头盔质量越大,线性风险越高。这项研究突出表明,在头盔设计和测试中,需要采用整体方法,包括旋转和线性头部伤害指标和风险。它还强调了向消费者提供头盔安全信息的必要性,以帮助他们做出明智的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Biomedical Engineering
Annals of Biomedical Engineering 工程技术-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
212
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Annals of Biomedical Engineering is an official journal of the Biomedical Engineering Society, publishing original articles in the major fields of bioengineering and biomedical engineering. The Annals is an interdisciplinary and international journal with the aim to highlight integrated approaches to the solutions of biological and biomedical problems.
期刊最新文献
In Silico Clinical Trial for Osteoporosis Treatments to Prevent Hip Fractures: Simulation of the Placebo Arm. A Comparative Analysis of Alpha and Beta Therapy in Prostate Cancer Using a 3D Image-Based Spatiotemporal Model. Statistical Shape Modeling to Determine Poromechanics of the Human Knee Joint. Clinical Validation of Non-invasive Simulation-Based Determination of Vascular Impedance, Wave Intensity, and Hydraulic Work in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Correction: The Effect of Low-Dose CT Protocols on Shoulder Model-Based Tracking accuracy Using Biplane Videoradiography.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1