Melanie Franklyn

Section Modulus Is the Optimum Geometric Predictor for Stress Fractures and Medial Tibial Stress Syndrome in Both Male and Female Athletes

Background Various tibial dimensions and geometric parameters have been linked to stress fractures in athletes and military recruits, but many mechanical parameters have still not been investigated. Hypotheses Sedentary people, athletes with medial tibial stress syndrome, and athletes with stress fractures have smaller tibial geometric dimensions and parameters than do uninjured athletes. Study Design Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods Using a total of 88 subjects, male and female patients with either a tibial stress fracture or medial tibial stress syndrome were compared with both uninjured aerobically active controls and uninjured sedentary controls. Tibial scout radiographs and cross-sectional computed tomography images of all subjects were scanned at the junction of the midthird and distal third of the tibia. Tibial dimensions were measured directly from the films; other parameters were calculated numerically. Results Uninjured exercising men have a greater tibial cortical cross-sectional area than do their sedentary and injured counterparts, resulting in a greater value of some other cross-sectional geometric parameters, particularly the section modulus. However, for women, the cross-sectional areas are either not different or only marginally different, and there are few tibial dimensions or geometric parameters that distinguish the uninjured exercisers from the sedentary and injured subjects. In women, the main difference between the groups was the distribution of cortical bone about the centroid as a result of the different values of section modulus. Last, medial tibial stress syndrome subjects had smaller tibial cross-sectional dimensions than did their uninjured exercising counterparts, suggesting that medial tibial stress syndrome is not just a soft-tissue injury but also a bony injury. Conclusion The results show that in men, the cross-sectional area and the section modulus are the key parameters in the tibia to distinguish exercise and injury status, whereas for women, it is the section modulus only.

Thoracic aortic injury in motor vehicle crashes: the effect of impact direction, side of body struck and seat belt use

BACKGROUND Using in-depth, real-world motor vehicle crash data from the United States and the United Kingdom, we aimed to assess the incidence and risk factors associated with thoracic aorta injuries. METHODS De-identified National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (U.S.) and Co-operative Crash Injury Study (U.K.) data formed the basis of this retrospective analysis. Logistic regression was used to assess the level of risk of thoracic aorta injury associated with impact direction, seat belt use and, given the asymmetry of the thoracic cavity, whether being struck toward the left side of the body was associated with increased risk in side-impact crashes. RESULTS A total of 13,436 U.S. and 3,756 U.K. drivers and front seat passengers were analyzed. The incidence of thoracic aorta injury in the U.S. and U.K. samples was 1.5% (n = 197) and 1.9% (n = 70), respectively. The risk was higher for occupants seated on the side closest to the impact than for occupants involved in frontal impact crashes. This was the case irrespective of whether the force was applied toward the left (belted: relative risk [RR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-7.1; p < 0.001) or the right side (belted: RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-5.1; p < 0.004) of the occupants body. For occupants involved in side-impact crashes, there was no difference in the risk of thoracic aorta injury whether the impacting force was applied toward the left or toward the right side of the occupants body. Seat belt use provided a protective benefit such that the risk of thoracic aorta injury among unbelted occupants was three times higher than among belted occupants (RR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.2-4.3; p < 0.001); however, the benefit varied across impact direction. Thoracic aorta injuries were found to be associated with high impact severity, and being struck by a sports utility vehicle relative to a passenger vehicle (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION Aortic injuries have been conventionally associated with frontal impacts. However, emergency clinicians should be aware that occupants of side-impact crashes are at greater risk, particularly if the occupant was unbelted and involved in a crash of high impact severity.

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF AORTIC INJURIES IN LATERAL IMPACTS

Injuries to the aorta are among the more serious injuries that result from vehicle impacts, and often may be fatal. This article examines the incidence of aortic injuries in the United States and United Kingdom by using two international databases of real-world crashes. The main outcome of interest was the level of risk associated with each principal direction of force for drivers and front-seat passengers with respect to sustaining aortic injuries. The results indicate that the risk of sustaining an injury to the aorta is greater for near-side crashes than for far-side crashes. Further it is apparent that, given a near-side crash, the risk of an aortic injury is greater on the left side of the body (and left side of the vehicle) than on the right. It also was found that the delta-V of crashes where occupants sustained an injury to the aorta was considerably higher than crashes where occupants did not sustain aortic injuries. It is speculated that the anatomical asymmetry of the thorax might play a role in the differences seen in injury risk associated with different impact directions. The results presented in this article could be of use to both the emergency physician treating patients involved in motor vehicle collisions as well as the engineer involved in occupant design countermeasures. Limitations and further planned research are discussed.

Experimental and finite element analysis of tibial stress fractures using a rabbit model

AIM To determine if rabbit models can be used to quantify the mechanical behaviour involved in tibial stress fracture (TSF) development. METHODS Fresh rabbit tibiae were loaded under compression using a specifically-designed test apparatus. Weights were incrementally added up to a load of 30 kg and the mechanical behaviour of the tibia was analysed using tests for buckling, bone strain and hysteresis. Structural mechanics equations were subsequently employed to verify that the results were within the range of values predicted by theory. A finite element (FE) model was developed using cross-sectional computer tomography (CT) images scanned from one of the rabbit bones, and a static load of 6 kg (1.5 times the rabbits body weight) was applied to represent running. The model was validated using the experimental strain gauge data, then geometric and elemental convergence tests were performed in order to find the minimum number of cross-sectional scans and elements respectively required for convergence. The analysis was then performed using both the model and the experimental results to investigate the mechanical behaviour of the rabbit tibia under compressive load and to examine crack initiation. RESULTS The experimental tests showed that under a compressive load of up to 12 kg, the rabbit tibia demonstrates linear behaviour with little hysteresis. Up to 30 kg, the bone does not fail by elastic buckling; however, there are low levels of tensile stress which predominately occur at and adjacent to the anterior border of the tibial midshaft: this suggests that fatigue failure occurs in these regions, since bone under cyclic loading initially fails in tension. The FE model predictions were consistent with both mechanics theory and the strain gauge results. The model was highly sensitive to small changes in the position of the applied load due to the high slenderness ratio of the rabbits tibia. The modelling technique used in the current study could have applications in the development of human FE models of bone, where, unlike rabbit tibia, the model would be relatively insensitive to very small changes in load position. However, the rabbit model itself is less beneficial as a tool to understand the mechanical behaviour of TSFs in humans due to the small size of the rabbit bone and the limitations of human-scale CT scanning equipment. CONCLUSION The current modelling technique could be used to develop human FE models. However, the rabbit model itself has significant limitations in understanding human TSF mechanics.