Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing-an international consensus statement (part I)

S.N. Robinovitch; S.L. Evans; J. Minns; A.C. Laing; P. Kannus; P.A. Cripton; S. Derler; S.J. Birge; D. Plant; I.D. Cameron; D.P. Kiel; J. Howland; K. Khan; Jes Bruun Lauritzen

Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing-an international consensus statement (part I)

S.N. Robinovitch, S.L. Evans, J. Minns, A.C. Laing, P. Kannus, P.A. Cripton, S. Derler, S.J. Birge, D. Plant, I.D. Cameron, D.P. Kiel, J. Howland, K. Khan, Jes Bruun Lauritzen

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Hip protectors represent a promising strategy for preventing fall-related hip fractures. However, clinical trials have yielded conflicting results due, in part, to lack of agreement on techniques for measuring and optimizing the biomechanical performance of hip protectors as a prerequisite to clinical trials. In November 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met in Copenhagen to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents an evidence-based consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for evaluating the biomechanical performance of hip protectors. The primary outcome of testing should be the percent reduction (compared with the unpadded condition) in peak value of the axial compressive force applied to the femoral neck during a simulated fall on the greater trochanter. To provide reasonable results, the test system should accurately simulate the pelvic anatomy, and the impact velocity (3.4 m/s), pelvic stiffness (acceptable range: 39-55 kN/m), and effective mass of the body (acceptable range: 22-33 kg) during impact. Given the current lack of clear evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of specific hip protectors, the primary value of biomechanical testing at present is to compare the protective value of different products, as opposed to rejecting or accepting specific devices for market use
Udgivelsesdato: 2009/12

Original language	English
Journal	Osteoporosis International
Volume	20
Issue number	12
Pages (from-to)	1977-1988
Number of pages	11
ISSN	0937-941X
Publication status	Published - 2009

Cite this

@article{99975c608b3711df928f000ea68e967b,

title = "Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing-an international consensus statement (part I)",

abstract = "Hip protectors represent a promising strategy for preventing fall-related hip fractures. However, clinical trials have yielded conflicting results due, in part, to lack of agreement on techniques for measuring and optimizing the biomechanical performance of hip protectors as a prerequisite to clinical trials. In November 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met in Copenhagen to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents an evidence-based consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for evaluating the biomechanical performance of hip protectors. The primary outcome of testing should be the percent reduction (compared with the unpadded condition) in peak value of the axial compressive force applied to the femoral neck during a simulated fall on the greater trochanter. To provide reasonable results, the test system should accurately simulate the pelvic anatomy, and the impact velocity (3.4 m/s), pelvic stiffness (acceptable range: 39-55 kN/m), and effective mass of the body (acceptable range: 22-33 kg) during impact. Given the current lack of clear evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of specific hip protectors, the primary value of biomechanical testing at present is to compare the protective value of different products, as opposed to rejecting or accepting specific devices for market use Udgivelsesdato: 2009/12",

author = "S.N. Robinovitch and S.L. Evans and J. Minns and A.C. Laing and P. Kannus and P.A. Cripton and S. Derler and S.J. Birge and D. Plant and I.D. Cameron and D.P. Kiel and J. Howland and K. Khan and Lauritzen, {Jes Bruun}",

note = "Times Cited: 1ArticleEnglishRobinovitch, S. NSimon Fraser Univ, Sch Engn Sci, Vancouver, BC, CanadaCited References Count: 51519UTSPRINGER LONDON LTDASHBOURNE HOUSE, THE GUILDWAY, OLD PORTSMOUTH ROAD, ARTINGTON GU3 1LP, GUILDFORD, ENGLANDARTINGTON",

year = "2009",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

pages = "1977--1988",

journal = "Osteoporosis International",

issn = "0937-941X",

publisher = "Springer",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hip protectors: recommendations for biomechanical testing-an international consensus statement (part I)

AU - Robinovitch, S.N.

AU - Evans, S.L.

AU - Minns, J.

AU - Laing, A.C.

AU - Kannus, P.

AU - Cripton, P.A.

AU - Derler, S.

AU - Birge, S.J.

AU - Plant, D.

AU - Cameron, I.D.

AU - Kiel, D.P.

AU - Howland, J.

AU - Khan, K.

AU - Lauritzen, Jes Bruun

N1 - Times Cited: 1ArticleEnglishRobinovitch, S. NSimon Fraser Univ, Sch Engn Sci, Vancouver, BC, CanadaCited References Count: 51519UTSPRINGER LONDON LTDASHBOURNE HOUSE, THE GUILDWAY, OLD PORTSMOUTH ROAD, ARTINGTON GU3 1LP, GUILDFORD, ENGLANDARTINGTON

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Hip protectors represent a promising strategy for preventing fall-related hip fractures. However, clinical trials have yielded conflicting results due, in part, to lack of agreement on techniques for measuring and optimizing the biomechanical performance of hip protectors as a prerequisite to clinical trials. In November 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met in Copenhagen to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents an evidence-based consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for evaluating the biomechanical performance of hip protectors. The primary outcome of testing should be the percent reduction (compared with the unpadded condition) in peak value of the axial compressive force applied to the femoral neck during a simulated fall on the greater trochanter. To provide reasonable results, the test system should accurately simulate the pelvic anatomy, and the impact velocity (3.4 m/s), pelvic stiffness (acceptable range: 39-55 kN/m), and effective mass of the body (acceptable range: 22-33 kg) during impact. Given the current lack of clear evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of specific hip protectors, the primary value of biomechanical testing at present is to compare the protective value of different products, as opposed to rejecting or accepting specific devices for market use Udgivelsesdato: 2009/12

AB - Hip protectors represent a promising strategy for preventing fall-related hip fractures. However, clinical trials have yielded conflicting results due, in part, to lack of agreement on techniques for measuring and optimizing the biomechanical performance of hip protectors as a prerequisite to clinical trials. In November 2007, the International Hip Protector Research Group met in Copenhagen to address barriers to the clinical effectiveness of hip protectors. This paper represents an evidence-based consensus statement from the group on recommended methods for evaluating the biomechanical performance of hip protectors. The primary outcome of testing should be the percent reduction (compared with the unpadded condition) in peak value of the axial compressive force applied to the femoral neck during a simulated fall on the greater trochanter. To provide reasonable results, the test system should accurately simulate the pelvic anatomy, and the impact velocity (3.4 m/s), pelvic stiffness (acceptable range: 39-55 kN/m), and effective mass of the body (acceptable range: 22-33 kg) during impact. Given the current lack of clear evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of specific hip protectors, the primary value of biomechanical testing at present is to compare the protective value of different products, as opposed to rejecting or accepting specific devices for market use Udgivelsesdato: 2009/12

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0937-941X

VL - 20

SP - 1977

EP - 1988

JO - Osteoporosis International

JF - Osteoporosis International

IS - 12

ER -