European Spine Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 10, pp 1464–1468 | Cite as

Thoracolumbar junction injuries after rollover crashes: difference between belted and unbelted front seat occupants

  • Joji InamasuEmail author
  • Bernard H. Guiot
Original Article


Motor vehicle collision (MVC) is one of the most common causes of thoracolumbar junction (TLJ) injury. Although it is of no doubt that the use of seatbelt reduces the incidence and severity of MVC-induced TLJ injury, how it is protective for front-seat occupants of an automobile after rollover crashes is unclear. Among 200 consecutive patients with a major TLJ (Th11-L2) injury due to high-energy trauma admitted from 2000 to 2004, 22 patients were identified as front-seat occupants of a four-wheel vehicle when a rollover crash occurred. The 22 patients were divided into two groups: 10 who were belted, and 12 who were unbelted. Patients’ demographics including the mean Injury Severity Score (ISS), incidence of neurologic deficit, level of TLJ injury, and type of TLJ injury according to the AO fracture classification were compared between the two groups. Neurologic deficit was present exclusively in the unbelted group, and the difference in the incidence was statistically significant (P = 0.04). Similarly, AO type B/C injury was present exclusively in the unbelted group. The belted group had a significantly lower mean ISS than the unbelted group (P < 0.01). Comparison between the ejected and non-ejected victims within the unbelted group revealed no statistical difference in the incidence of neurologic deficit or type of injury. It is likely that the high incidence of neurologic deficit in the unbelted group was due to the high incidence of AO type B/C injury. This study indirectly proves the efficacy of seatbelt in reducing the severity of rollover-induced TLJ injury. Because of the limited number of cases, it is uncertain whether ejection from vehicle, which occurs exclusively in the unbelted victims, is a crucial factor in determining the severity or type of injury after rollover crashes.


Thoracolumbar junction Rollover crash Seatbelt Neurologic deficit 



This paper had been presented orally at SPINEWEEK 2008 on 28/05/2008 (Geneva, Switzerland). No funds were received in support of this work. No benefits in any form have been and will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Allen S, Zhu S, Sauter C, Layde P, Hargarten S (2006) A comprehensive statewide analysis of seatbelt non-use with injury and hospital admissions: new data, old problem. Acad Emerg Med 13:427–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson PA, Rivara FP, Maier RV, Drake C (1991) The epidemiology of seatbelt-associated injuries. J Trauma 31:60–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ball ST, Vaccaro AR, Albert TJ, Cotler JM (2000) Injuries of the thoracolumbar spine associated with restraint use in head-on motor vehicle accidents. J Spinal Disord 13:297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bourbeau R, Desjardins D, Maag U, Laberge-Nadeau C (1993) Neck injuries among belted and unbelted occupants of the front seat of cars. J Trauma 35:794–799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Claytor B, MacLennan PA, McGwin G Jr, Rue LW III, Kirkpatrick JS (2004) Cervical spine injury and restraint system use in motor vehicle collisions. Spine 29:386–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conroy C, Hoyt DB, Eastman AB, Erwin S, Pacyna S, Holbrook TL, Vaughan T, Sise M, Kennedy F, Velky T (2006) Rollover crashes: predicting serious injury based on occupant, vehicle, and crash characteristics. Accid Anal Prev 38:835–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper C, Dunham CM, Rodriguez A (1995) Falls and major injuries are risk factors for thoracolumbar fractures: cognitive impairment and multiple injuries impede the detection of back pain and tenderness. J Trauma 38:692–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cushman LA, Good RG, States JD (1991) Characteristics of motor vehicle accidents resulting in spinal cord injury. Accid Anal Prev 23:557–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gertzbein SD (1992) Scoliosis Research Society. Multicenter spine fracture study. Spine 17:528–540PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huelke DF, Mackay GM, Morris A (1995) Vertebral column injuries and lap-shoulder belts. J Trauma 38:547–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Inamasu J, Guiot BH (2007) Thoracolumbar junction injuries after motor vehicle collision: are there differences between restrained and non-restrained front-seat occupants? J Neurosurg Spine 7:311–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Magerl F, Aebi M, Gertzbein SD, Harms J, Nazarian S (1994) A comprehensive classification of thoracic and lumbar injuries. Eur Spine J 3:184–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Connor P (2002) Injury to the spinal cord in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Accid Anal Prev 34:477–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Connor PJ, Brown D (2006) Relative risk of spinal cord injury in road crashes involving seriously injured occupants of light passenger vehicles. Accid Anal Prev 38:1081–1086PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson A, Branfoot T, Barlow IF, Giannoudis PV (2002) Spinal injury patterns resulting from car and motorcycle accidents. Spine 27:2825–2830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasso RC, Meyer PR, Heinemann AW, Van Aken J, Hastie B (1997) Seat-belt use and relation to neurologic injury in motor vehicle crashes. J Spinal Disord 10:325–328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith JA, Siegel JH, Siddiqi SQ (2005) Spine and spinal cord injury in motor vehicle crashes: a function of change in velocity and energy dissipation on impact with respect to the direction of crash. J Trauma 59:117–131PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of South Florida College of MedicineTampaUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurosurgerySaiseikai Utsunomiya HospitalUtsunomiyaJapan

Personalised recommendations