Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 25, Issue 1 , Pages 63-69, January 2010

Effect of hip protectors, falling angle and body mass index on pressure distribution over the hip during simulated falls

  • W.J. Choi

      Affiliations

    • Injury Prevention and Mobility Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, 8888 university drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6.
  • ,
  • J.A. Hoffer

      Affiliations

    • Neurokinesiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
  • ,
  • S.N. Robinovitch

      Affiliations

    • Injury Prevention and Mobility Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada
    • School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada

Received 14 March 2009; accepted 18 August 2009. published online 22 September 2009.

Abstract 

Background

We examined how a soft shell hip protector affects the magnitude and distribution of force to the hip during simulated falls, and how the protective effect depends on the fall direction and the amount of soft tissue padding over the hip.

Methods

Fourteen young women with either high or low body mass index participated in a “pelvis release experiment” that simulated falls resulting in either lateral, anterolateral or posterolateral impact to the pelvis with/without a soft shell hip protector. Outcome variables were the magnitude and location of peak pressure (d, theta) with respect to the greater trochanter, total impact force, and percent force applied to four defined hip regions.

Findings

The soft shell hip protector reduced peak pressure by 70%. The effect was two times greater in low than high body mass index individuals. The protector shunted the peak pressure distally along the shaft of the femur (d=52mm (SD 22), theta=−21° (SD 49) in the unpadded trials versus d=81mm (SD 23), theta=−10° (SD 35) in the padded trials). Peak force averaged 12% greater in posterolateral and 17% lower in anterolateral than lateral falls.

Interpretation

Our results indicate that the hip protector we tested had a much stronger protective benefit for low than high body mass index individuals. Next generation protectors might be developed for improved shunting of pressure away from the femur, improved protection during posterolateral falls, and greater force attenuation for low body mass index individuals.

Keywords: Hip fracture, Falls, Hip protectors, Impact angle, BMI, Soft tissue thickness

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0268-0033(09)00199-5

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.08.009

Clinical Biomechanics
Volume 25, Issue 1 , Pages 63-69, January 2010