• Users Online: 181
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 91-100

Brain injury biomechanics and abusive head trauma


1 Center for Neuropathology, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
2 Department of Pathology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rudy J Castellani
Center for Neuropathology, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfsm.jfsm_10_18

Rights and Permissions

Contemporary biomechanical theory of traumatic brain injury has its foundation in Holbourn's thesis on shear strain and Ommaya's primate experimentation demonstrating the role of rotation in a variety of lesions including subdural hematoma (SDH) and diffuse axonal injury. Empirical human observations have since confirmed, for the most part, the early concepts. Ethical concerns regarding primate research, however, have prompted in vitro models, which in turn has led to challenges with respect to the correlation between in vitro observations and the clinical data. Despite these challenges, medicolegal proceedings may call upon biomechanical engineers to reconstruct complex injury scenarios and offer opinions on the scientific plausibility of clinical disease states, such as SDH, hemorrhagic retinopathy, and cerebral edema, associated with hypothetical or proffered action sequences during the course of an unwitnessed homicide. It is important to note, however, that in vitro models by their nature are low-evidence quality studies that attempt to advance hypotheses but do not address cause and effect. As a whole, biomechanical models, as they pertain specifically to the brain and spine, are mathematically imprecise. Often, endpoints of limited relevance are relied upon (e.g., skull fracture thresholds), which predictably overestimate the in vivo risk of significant injury. Given the increasing role of biomechanical engineering in the interpretation of fatal pediatric head trauma, a heightened awareness of the limitations warranted.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed64    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded54    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal