Comparison of standard and nonstandard helmets and variants influencing the choice of helmets: A preliminary report of cross-sectional prospective analysis of 100 cases

BACKGROUND: The literature does not offer the rate of protection provided by different types of helmets used, especially as it applies to developing countries. We hypothesize that standard versus nonstandard types of helmets might differ in the rate of complications of head and neck trauma occurring in victims of motorcycle accidents. Here we report the rate of occurrence, the type of injuries and differences thereof in standard and nonstandard helmet bearers, and its relevance to protection from serious injury. METHODS: The data were gathered from a data set of motorcycle accident victims admitted to the emergency department of Sina Hospital (Teheran/Iran). A cross-sectional study was designed for a 6-month period of time, June to December 2007. Variants analyzed included: demographics, types of helmets used, level of education of the victims (as in: being trained for using helmets and status of holding a valid driving license). The latter variants were evaluated for possibly influencing the outcome of the injured motorcyclists using either kind of helmets. RESULTS: Among a total of 576 injured motorcyclists who had head, face, or neck injuries, 432 (75%) were using some kind of helmet. A total of 144 (25%) of the injured patients were admitted to the neurosurgical emergency service. There were 100 patients whose data sheets contained all variables which could be included in the pilot analysis of this cohort. DISCUSSION: All 100 subjects were male patients with the age range of 32 ± 11 years. Twenty-five percent were using standard helmets at the time of accident, 43% had no cranio-facio-cervical injury except very mild skin abrasions, and 23% had facial injury, including skin lacerations needing sutures, two nasal bone fractures, and no maxillofacial damage. Among the patients using standard helmets, 44% had head injuries which needed to be taken care of (mostly nonoperatively), while 61% using nonstandard helmets had head trauma (P > 0.05). The other variables did not reach a significant value affecting the use of either standard or nonstandard helmets in prevention of craniofacial damages. CONCLUSION: This pilot analysis (comprising the data from 100 cases of motorcycle accidents) could not demonstrate statistically significant differences in injury patterns of different types of helmets and variants influencing their respective use. However, it can lead the way for further analysis of larger and more comprehensive head trauma databases regarding factors contributing to the issue of head injury.