Title |
Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries
|
---|---|
Published in |
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, October 2014
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00068-014-0453-0 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
B. Joseph, V. Pandit, B. Zangbar, M. Amman, M. Khalil, T. O’Keeffe, T. Orouji, A. Asif, A. Katta, D. Judkins, R. S. Friese, P. Rhee |
Abstract |
Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of disability in bicycle riders. Preventive measures including bicycle helmet laws have been highlighted; however, its protective role has always been debated. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of bicycle helmets in prevention of intra-cranial hemorrhage. We hypothesized that bicycle helmets are protective and prevent the development of intra-cranial hemorrhage. We performed a 4-year (2009-2012) retrospective cohort analysis of all the patients who presented with traumatic brain injury due to bicycle injuries to our level 1 trauma center. We compared helmeted and non-helmeted bicycle riders for differences in the patterns of injury, need for intensive care unit admissions and mortality. A total of 864 patients were reviewed of which, 709 patients (helmeted = 300, non-helmeted = 409) were included. Non-helmeted bicycle riders were more likely to be young (p < 0.001) males (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the median ISS between the two groups (p = 0.3). Non-helmeted riders were more likely to have a skull fracture (p = 0.01) and a scalp laceration (p = 0.01) compared to the helmeted riders. There was no difference in intra-cranial hemorrhage between the two groups (p = 0.1). Wearing a bicycle helmet was not independently associated (p = 0.1) with development of intra-cranial hemorrhage. Bicycle helmets may have a protective effect against external head injury but its protective role for intra-cranial hemorrhage is questionable. Further studies assessing the protective role of helmets for intra-cranial hemorrhage are warranted. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 31 | 28% |
United States | 10 | 9% |
Australia | 6 | 5% |
Canada | 4 | 4% |
Spain | 2 | 2% |
New Zealand | 2 | 2% |
France | 2 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Other | 5 | 5% |
Unknown | 46 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 95 | 86% |
Scientists | 7 | 6% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Belgium | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 6 | 15% |
Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
Professor | 5 | 13% |
Other | 3 | 8% |
Other | 8 | 20% |
Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
Engineering | 7 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
Other | 5 | 13% |
Unknown | 8 | 20% |