Comparison of epidemiology and injury profile between vulnerable road users and motor vehicle occupants in road traffic fatalities.

Objective: Road traffic injuries (RTIs) are a major global health issue causing a global burden of mortality and morbidity. Half of all fatalities on the world's roads are vulnerable road users (VRUs). The targeted intervention strategies based on fatality analysis focusing on VRUs can effectively contribute to reducing RTIs. This study aimed to compare VRUs and motor vehicle occupants (MVOs) in terms of epidemiology and injury profile. Methods: We utilized a nationwide, prospective database of RTI-related mortality cases for patients who visited 23 emergency departments between January 2011 and December 2015. All fatalities due to RTIs in the prehospital phase or in-hospital were eligible, excluding patients with unknown mode of transport and those admitted to general wards. The primary and secondary outcomes were fracture injuries and visceral injuries diagnosed using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10). We compared fracture injuries between VRUs and MVOs using Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2- and 2+ classification. Results: Among a total 3,694 road traffic fatalities (RTFs), 43.3% were pedestrians, followed by MVOs (27.0%), motorcyclists (18.9), bicyclists (6.6%), and agricultural vehicle users (4.2%). The elderly (>60 years old) accounted for 54.9% of VRU fatalities. RTFs occurred most frequently in the autumn and the VRU group and the MVO group showed significant differences in weekly and diurnal variation in RTFs. The injury severities (AIS 2+) of the head, neck, and thorax were significantly different between the 2 groups (P < 0.05). Head (32.1%) and intracranial (58.6%) injuries were the most common fracture and visceral injury sites for RTFs, followed by the thorax and intrathoracic organs (25.3 and 28.8%, respectively). Conclusions: Elderly pedestrians should be targeted for decreases in RTFs, and road traffic safety interventions for VRUs should be made based on the analysis of temporal epidemiology and injury profiles of RTFs.

Risk of serious injury of occupants involved in frontal crashes of cab-over-type trucks.

OBJECTIVES: Truck vehicles (TVs) have a different structure and stiffness than non-TVs and are used commercially for transporting goods. This study aimed to analyze whether truck occupants have a greater risk of serious injury than those of other types of vehicles. METHODS: Crash data were obtained from the Korean In-Depth Data Analysis Study (KIDAS) for calendar years 2011-2016. Vehicles involved in frontal crash were included and classified into TVs and non-TVs (passenger cars and sports utility vehicles). We compared the demographic characteristics and serious injuries by body region between the 2 groups and analyzed factors that contributed to the serious injury severity from frontal crashes. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 884 occupants; 177 (20.0%) were in TVs and 707 (80.0%) were in non-TVs. Non-TVs had more frontal airbags deployments than TVs (50.9% vs. 3.4%, P <.01). TV occupants were 4.8 times more likely to have a serious lower extremity (LE) injury (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 4.820; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.407-9.653) and 2.5 times to have a serious abdominal injury (AOR = 2.465; 95% CI, 1.108-5.487) compared to non-TV occupants. CONCLUSIONS: Truck occupants had more serious LE and abdominal injuries than those of other types of vehicles in frontal crashes. Structural improvement and legislative efforts to develop safety systems are necessary to improve the safety of truck occupants.

The Preventive Effect of Head Injury by Helmet Type in Motorcycle Crashes: A Rural Korean Single-Center Observational Study.

Introduction. The goal of this study was to determine the preventive effect on head injury by helmet type: full face helmet (FFH), open face helmet (OFH), and half-coverage helmet (HCH). Methods. This is a retrospective observational study of motorcycle crash victims between June 2012 and May 2015 in a rural town in Korea. We performed multiple linear regression to predict the effect of each type of helmet compared to unhelmeted status in preventing head injury using dependent variables based on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) and applied logistic regression modeling to compare the incidence of head injury. Results. Of the 738 patients, the number of FFH patients was 33.5%, followed by unhelmeted (27.8%), OFH (17.6%), and HCH (13.0%) patients. The FFH and OFH group had a lower head maximum AIS than unhelmeted group (coefficient: -0.368, 95% CI: -0.559 to -0.177 and coefficient: -0.235, 95% CI: -0.459 to -0.010, resp.) and only FFHs experienced a reduction effect of severe and minor head injury (OR: 0.206, 95% CI: 0.080 to 0.533 and OR: 0.589, 95% CI: 0.377 to 0.920, resp.). Conclusions. FFHs and OFHs reduce the risk of head injury, and FFHs have a more preventive effect on head injury in motorcycle crashes.