4.5 Article

Verification of High-Rate Vertical Loading Laboratory Skeletal Fractures by Comparison with Theater Injury Patterns

期刊

ANNALS OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 3080-3090

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-021-02873-1

关键词

WIAMan; Under body blast; Biomechanics; Fracture comparison

资金

  1. US Army by DEVCOM DAC [W911NF-19-2-0274]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared theater injury data with laboratory experiments and found that most experimental tests had similar fracture patterns to theater injuries for certain body regions, but the overall fracture distribution was less similar. Lower extremity fracture similarity was lower compared to spine and pelvis similarity.
For the current study, an existing theater injury data set was compared to component and whole body experiments meant to replicate the theater high rate vertical loading environment. The theater injury data set was derived from real world events that were within the design range of the Warrior Injury Assessment Manikin. A qualitative and quantitative assessment of the whole body fracture patterns was developed to determine whether the laboratory loading was correctly representing the resulting injuries seen in theater Underbody Blast (UBB) events. Results indicated that most of the experimental test fracture patterns were similar to the theater injuries for Abbreviated Injury Scale body regions of interest (lower extremities, pelvis, and spine); however, some of the body regions had higher similarity scores compared to others. Whole body fracture distribution was less similar than the component tests because of differences in injury distributions. The lower extremity whole body similarity was lower than spine and pelvis similarity. This analysis was able to identify some experimental tests that might not represent theater loading. In conclusion, this analysis confirmed that some laboratory testing produced skeletal injury patterns that are seen in comparable theater UBB events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据