Biomechanical testing of hip protectors following the Canadian Standards Association express document
- 81 Downloads
A variety of hip protectors are available, but it is not clear which is the most effective and there is no standard test to evaluate their performance. This is the first study that uses a standard mechanical test on hip protectors. Some protectors perform well but others are almost ineffective, providing little to no protection to the wearer during a fall.
Each year, over 70,000 patients are admitted to hospital in the UK with hip fractures. There are a variety of commercial hip protectors currently available. However, it is not explicitly clear which is the most effective with regard to maximum force attenuation, whilst still being both comfortable for the user and providing reasonable force reduction if misplaced from the intended position. The numerous test methods reported in the literature have given conflicting results, making objective comparison difficult for users, researchers, and manufacturers alike. The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has therefore published an express document (EXP-08-17) with a draft standard test method. This paper presents initial results for a range of hip protectors.
Eighteen commercially available hip protectors were tested according to EXP-08-17. Each hip protector was impacted five times in correct anatomical alignment over the greater trochanter and once at 50 mm displacements in the anterior, posterior, and lateral directions.
Considerable differences were identified between individual hip protectors in their ability to reduce impact forces on the femur (between 3% and 36% reduction in peak force). The performance was reduced when misplaced in many cases (maximum reduction only 20%).
This is the first study that uses a standard mechanical test on hip protectors. Previous studies have used a variety of methods, making it difficult to interpret results. We hope that these results using a standard test method will facilitate the effective comparison of results, as well as providing useful data for clinicians, users, and purchasers.
KeywordsBiomechanics Elderly Falls Fall injuries Hip fracture Hip protectors
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Sam Evans was a consultant to the Ascent Group on hip protector design and testing and Dow Corning on impact protection materials and testing. Both Sam Evans and Bethany Keenan are consultants for Delloch and SpineCor. Delloch provided the majority of the hip protectors for this study.
- 4.Parkkari J, Kannus P, Palvanen M, Natri A, Vainio J, Aho H, Vuori I, Jarvinen M (1999) Majority of hip fractures occur as a result of a fall and impact on the greater trochanter of the femur: a prospective controlled hip fracture study with 206 consecutive patients. Calcif Tissue Int 65:183–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hernlund E, Svedbom A, Ivergard M, Compston J, Cooper C, Stenmark J, McCloskey EV, Jonsson B, Kanis JA (2013) Osteoporosis in the European Union: medical management, epidemiology and economic burden. A report prepared in collaboration with the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations (EFPIA). Arch Osteoporos 8:136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.NICE (2016) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hip fracture for adults NICE quality standard. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/qs16/documents/draft-quality-standard-2. Accessed 8 Oct 2018
- 14.Santesso N, Carrasco-Labra A, Brignardello-Petersen R (2014) Hip protectors for preventing hip fractures in older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev:CD001255Google Scholar
- 25.Wiener SL, Andersson GBJ, Nyhus LM, Czech J (2002) Force reduction by an external hip protector on the human hip after falls. Clin Orthop Relat Res (1976–2007) 398:157–168Google Scholar
- 27.Robinovitch SN, Evans SL, Minns J, Laing AC, Kannus P, Cripton PA, Derler S, Birge SJ, Plant D, Cameron ID, Kiel DP, Howland J, Khan K, Lauritzen JB (2009) Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing—an international consensus statement (part I). Osteoporos Int 20:1977–1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Cameron ID, Robinovitch S, Birge S, Kannus P, Khan K, Lauritzen J, Howland J, Evans S, Minns J, Laing A, Cripton P, Derler S, Plant D, Kiel DP (2010) Hip protectors: recommendations for conducting clinical trials—an international consensus statement (part II). Osteoporos Int 21:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.CSA (2017) Hip protectors—express document. CSA Group. http://shop.csa.ca/en/canada/injury-prevention/exp08-17/invt/express082017 EXP-08-17. Accessed 15 May 2017
- 31.European Committee for Standardization. EN 1621-1:1997 Motorcyclists’ protective clothing against mechanical impact. Part 1: requirements and test methods for impact protectorsGoogle Scholar
- 32.Motorcycle Industry Association. Statistics. http://www.mcia.co.uk/page/rider-license-holders. Accessed 1 Jan 2019