Role of age and injury mechanism on cervical spine injury tolerance from head contact loading
Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the influence of age and injury mechanism on cervical spine tolerance to injury from head contact loading using survival analysis.
Methods: This study analyzed data from previously conducted experiments using post mortem human subjects (PMHS). Group A tests used the upright intact head–cervical column experimental model. The inferior end of the specimen was fixed, the head was balanced by a mechanical system, and natural lordosis was removed. Specimens were placed on a testing device via a load cell. The piston applied loading at the vertex region. Spinal injuries were identified using medical images. Group B tests used the inverted head–cervical column experimental model. In one study, head–T1 specimens were fixed distally, and C7–T1 joints were oriented anteriorly, preserving lordosis. Torso mass of 16 kg was added to the specimen. In another inverted head–cervical column study, occiput–T2 columns were obtained, an artificial head was attached, T1–T2 was fixed, C4–C5 disc was maintained horizontal in the lordosis posture, and C7–T1 was unconstrained. The specimens were attached to the drop test carriage carrying a torso mass of 15 kg. A load cell at the inferior end measured neck loads in both studies. Axial neck force and age were used as the primary response variable and covariate to derive injury probability curves using survival analysis.
Results: Group A tests showed that age is a significant (P < .05) and negative covariate; that is, increasing age resulted in decreasing force for the same risk. Injuries were mainly vertebral body fractures and concentrated at one level, mid-to-lower cervical spine, and were attributed to compression-related mechanisms. However, age was not a significant covariate for the combined data from group B tests. Both group B tests produced many soft tissue injuries, at all levels, from C1 to T1. The injury mechanism was attributed to mainly extension. Multiple and noncontiguous injuries occurred. Injury probability curves, ±95% confidence intervals, and normalized confidence interval sizes representing the quality of the mean curve are given for different data sets.
Conclusions: For compression-related injuries, specimen age should be used as a covariate or individual specimen data may be prescaled to derive risk curves. For distraction- or extension-related injuries, however, specimen age need not be used as a covariate in the statistical analysis. The findings from these tests and survival analysis indicate that the age factor modulates human cervical spine tolerance to impact injury.
