Buscar en
Spanish Journal of Legal Medicine
Toda la web
Inicio Spanish Journal of Legal Medicine Usefulness of biomechanical assessment in determining post-traumatic neck pain s...
Journal Information
Vol. 43. Issue 3.
Pages 106-114 (July - September 2017)
Visits
1822
Vol. 43. Issue 3.
Pages 106-114 (July - September 2017)
Original Article
DOI: 10.1016/j.remle.2017.07.002
Full text access
Usefulness of biomechanical assessment in determining post-traumatic neck pain sequelae
Utilidad de la valoración biomecánica en la determinación de secuelas por cervicalgia postraumática
Visits
...
María José Vivas Brosetaa,
Corresponding author
mariajose.vivas@ibv.upv.es

Corresponding author.
, Clemente Pastor Tenderoa, Enrique de Francisco Encisob, Raquel Marzo Rosellóa, Ana María Errejón Garcíac, Matías Vicente Mendozab
a Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain
b Instituto de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses de Valencia, Valencia, Spain
c Juzgados de Valdemoro de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (4)
Show moreShow less
Tables (1)
Table 1. Summary of the number of cases with sequelae and their mean score in the pre-evaluation and final evaluation of the medical examiner after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests.
Abstract
Introduction

Post-traumatic neck pain is important in the context of liability compensation. In addition, legislative changes in 2015 give greater relevance to investigations. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of biomechanical assessment tests in assessing post-traumatic neck pain due to traffic accident by medical examiners, and to analyse the influence of these tests in determining sequelae.

Materials and methods

A descriptive study was conducted with a sample of people with neck pain after a traffic accident who were undergoing forensic assessment. Each medical examiner participating in the study selected cases they believed would benefit from a more complete assessment, conducted a pre-assessment of sequelae, referred cases for biomechanical assessment and, after receiving the results, assessed sequelae and the usefulness of the test. The initial and final assessments of sequelae were compared, taking into account the outcome of the biomechanical testing. The usefulness of the test was also described.

Results

A total of 59 cases was included, 51 of which accepted the testing. Results showed normal overall functionality (61%), slightly altered functionality (19%), altered functionality (12%) and no collaboration (8%). There were differences between the pre-evaluation of sequelae and the final assessment, with differences being less in the cases of normal functionality, no collaboration and rejection of testing, and greater in the cases of impaired functionality. A total of 98% of the test were useful to the participating medical examiners.

Conclusions

Biomechanical assessment test were useful to medical examiners in assessing post-traumatic neck pain sequelae secondary to a traffic accident and helped to rate the magnitude of the sequelae.

Keywords:
Forensic medicine
Neck pain
Traffic accident
Biomechanics
Pain assessment
Posturography
Dynamometry
Photogrammetry
Resumen
Introducción

La cervicalgia postraumática es importante en el contexto de las indemnizaciones por responsabilidad civil. Además, los cambios legislativos de 2015 dan mayor relevancia a las pruebas complementarias. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la utilidad de las pruebas de valoración biomecánica en la valoración de la cervicalgia postraumática por accidente de circulación por parte del médico forense y analizar su influencia en la determinación de secuelas.

Material y método

Se realizó un estudio descriptivo con una muestra de personas con cervicalgia por accidente de circulación en proceso de valoración en el Servicio de Clínica Médico-Forense. Cada médico forense participante en la investigación seleccionó casos que se beneficiarían de un mayor estudio, realizó una preevaluación de secuelas, los remitió para valoración biomecánica y, tras conocer los resultados, valoró las secuelas y la utilidad de la prueba. Se comparó la valoración inicial y final de secuelas en función del resultado de las pruebas biomecánicas y se describió su utilidad.

Resultados

Se incluyeron 59 casos, 51 de los cuales accedieron a realizarse las pruebas. Mostraron: funcionalidad global normal (61%), levemente alterada (19%), alterada (12%) y no colaboración (8%). Hubo diferencias entre la preevaluación de secuelas y la valoración final, reduciéndose en los casos de funcionalidad normal, no colaboración y rechazo de prueba, y aumentando en los casos de funcionalidad alterada. El 98% de las pruebas resultaron útiles para los médicos participantes.

Conclusiones

Las pruebas de valoración biomecánica fueron útiles para los médicos forenses en la valoración de secuelas de la cervicalgia postraumática por accidente de circulación y ayudaron a graduar la magnitud de las secuelas.

Palabras clave:
Medicina Forense
Cervicalgia
Accidente de tráfico
Biomecánica
Valoración del dolor
Posturografía
Dinamometría
Fotogrametría
Full Text
Introduction

Minor cervical injuries in traffic accidents are extremely important due to their frequency and their economic importance in the context of civil liability claims, both in the legislative framework up to 20151 and in the one that came into force as of January 2016.2 According to a study by the MAPFRE Foundation3 in Spain, this pathology is responsible for 50% of personal injuries caused by traffic accidents. According to Garamendi and Landa (data from Medical-Forensic Clinical Services)4 it is involved in up to 50% of the assessments requested for crimes or misdemeanours and approximately 70% in the context of a traffic accident. In the references, there are very high percentages of sequelae in the injuries derived from whiplash (above 64%), and these are fundamentally subjective (75%) and with wide variability depending on the medical expert who performs the assessment.5 The estimated incidence of exaggeration of critical symptoms in the cervical spine could be around 60% in cervical sprains and about 50% in chronic cervicalgia.6

The assessment of post-traumatic cervicalgia is complex at the diagnostic level due to the lack of specific complementary tests that allow the injury or its functional repercussion to be objectified. Its evolutionary course is often torpid with a tendency to be chronic and even depends on psychosocial factors such as initial anxiety,7 fear of pain8 or cultural environment.9 Lastly, the opportunity for secondary gain linked to compensation could be an additional handicap for the assessment of bodily harm in the field of forensic and legal medicine. Although it should also be noted that, according to the systematic review by Spearing and Conelly from 2011,10 there is no evidence of an association between injury compensation and poor health outcomes in people with whiplash.

In any case, any tool or method that improves the accuracy in the evaluation of this pathology and/or its sequelae would have a great professional, socio-economic and even legal impact. In addition, there are two facts that confer greater relevance to the complementary tests at present. The first is the entry into force of the new Law,2 where the sequela resulting from minor trauma to the cervical spine is compensated only if a conclusive medical report confirms its existence after the period of temporary injury. The second is the new role of the medical examiner in extrajudicial procedures (Organic Law of the Judiciary).11,12 Both circumstances give greater importance to the complementary tests that may be part of a medical–forensic assessment protocol and are useful in the assessment of bodily harm. Specifically, the complementary tests that provide objective data that are imposed on the subjectivity of the symptoms characteristic of post-traumatic cervical syndrome.

Functional assessment using biomechanical techniques consists of the instrumental evaluation of functions. These tools allow an evaluation of the functional impact of an injury from a complementary point of view to the diagnosis, as opposed to most of the “classic” complementary examinations, in which the patient or subject is eminently passive. Some examples of valid methodologies applicable to the assessment of the functional repercussion of traffic accidents involving the cervical spine are: the kinematic assessment of cervical movement,13 the evaluation of balance by posturography14 or the dynamometric assessment of strength in the hand.15 The treatment of the results allows the comparison of the data obtained with the reference population of the person assessed, the analysis of coherence in performing gestures, the congruence with other data of the person evaluated or the repeatability of the records.16 The functional assessment using biomechanical techniques is widely implemented in Spain in areas such as physical medicine and rehabilitation or occupational medicine, but its development is still incipient in the field of forensic and legal medicine. Although it presents good prospects as to its use for the establishment of the health of the injuries, its interest for the medical examiner and its influence in the assessment of sequelae have not yet been studied.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of biomechanical assessment tests by the medical examiner in the evaluation of minor cervical trauma due to traffic accidents and to analyse their influence in the determination of sequelae.

Materials and methodsType of study and inclusion criteria of the sample

A cross-sectional, descriptive study was carried out by non-probabilistic sampling of consecutive cases in the city of Valencia, during the period between June 2013 and May 2014. The participants were people with post-traumatic cervicalgia secondary to a traffic accident in the process of forensic medical evaluation by one of the four medical examiners of the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of Valencia who participated in the study. The inclusion criteria for selecting the sample were: age between 18 and 65 years, more than 3 years and less than 18 months since the accident, and no injuries of greater severity as a consequence of the accident. Biomechanical tests were prescribed for those injured who, following the stabilisation of cervical injuries, the medical examiner considered would benefit from obtaining complementary information through biomechanical tests. These were cases in which there were alterations in neck motility after the exploration or residual subjective symptoms or there were inconsistencies between the exploratory findings and the symptoms put forward or there were doubts about the existence of real residual symptoms.

Assessment protocolPre-evaluation of sequelae

In a first consultation, all those injured were assessed by their medical examiner through the study of their clinical record, medical history, physical examination and classification by the Quebec Task Force scale.17 The Quebec scale assesses the severity of the whiplash syndrome in five grades. Data collection included socio-demographic factors, data regarding the accident, clinical diagnostic and therapeutic data, evolution, current subjective status and physical examination. In this first consultation, the medical examiners made their assessment of sequelae according to the Royal Legislative Decree1 in force at the time of the study and recorded on the pre-evaluation form, which was kept by a researcher of the study until the data analysis phase. Participating medical examiners, who had been trained in the correct prescription and interpretation of biomechanical tests through two two-hour sessions of face-to-face training, prescribed the tests and those injured were referred for evaluation to the Institute of Biomechanics of Valencia (IBV in Spanish). The testing was voluntary. All participants were informed by their medical examiner and expressed their written consent prior to the assessment.

Biomechanical functional assessment

The biomechanical functional evaluation consisted of kinematic assessment of cervical movement, dynamometric assessment of hand strength and/or assessment of balance by posturography as indicated by the medical examiner. The kinematic assessment of cervical movement was performed using the NedCervical/IBV application, based on 3D photogrammetry.13 Hand strength was assessed using the NedMano/IBV application, based on a non-deformable dynamometer.18,19 The balance assessment was performed with the NedSVE/IBV application, which records the displacement of the pressure centre using a dynamometer platform20,21 (Fig. 1). In all three cases, the results are compared to reference databases segmented by the disturbing variables of each type of assessment, such as sex, age or height. The three evaluation methodologies have been previously used in forensic medical assessment.15,22 The results of each assessment were presented in a technical report to the medical examiner according to the technical standard UNE 50135:199623 prepared by a medical expert in biomechanical evaluation. The conclusions of the report always referred to the function assessed (which could be normal, slightly altered or altered), the limitation in the ranges of movement (if any) and whether or not the person had cooperated during the test; in other words, if they made an effort compatible with their possibilities to perform the gestures requested by the evaluator and, therefore, the results showed their real functional state. This conclusion is reached from the analysis of the consistency of results, study of repeatability of registers and/or comparison with patterns of simulated forms.

Figure 1.

Images corresponding to the biomechanical assessment protocol with the NedCervical/IBV (A), NedMano/IBV (B) and NedSVE/IBV (C) systems, respectively.

(0.35MB).
Final evaluation of sequelae and usefulness assessment of biomechanical tests

Once the biomechanical assessment report was received, the medical examiner completed the final evaluation form indicating the assessment of sequelae contained in the definitive Medical Forensic Health Report. In addition, their opinion was gathered about the usefulness of the biomechanical assessment report in decision-making and based on which criteria: (1) to show or confirm recovery, (2) show or confirm active symptoms and (3) show or confirm simulation.

Variables analysed

The variables analysed in this study are:

  • Sequela score: numeric variable corresponding to sequential points awarded by each medical examiner participating in the study in the pre-evaluation and final evaluation according to the scale in force.1

  • Type of sequela: description of the type of sequela granted in each case according to the scale in force.1

  • Usefulness: dichotomous variable (yes/no) corresponding to the usefulness of the biomechanical assessment report perceived by the medical examiner.

  • Type of biomechanical outcome: a description of the result obtained in the biomechanical assessment tests, which could be one of four types: “normal functionality”, “slightly altered functionality”, “altered functionality” or “non-cooperative” in the event of a lack of collaboration during the tests. The lack of collaboration during the tests means that the person assessed does not make an adequate effort to the best of their abilities to perform the gestures requested by the evaluator.

Data analysis

Data analysis was performed using the Microsoft Excel computer application and SPSS statistical software. It consisted of a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the sample and the variables of this study. Furthermore, a multivariate statistical analysis was performed to compare the sequela score in the pre-evaluation and in the final assessment using the ANOVA technique for the set of cases corresponding to each type of biomechanical result.

ResultsDescription of the sample

During the recruitment period of the sample, 208 injured people met the established criteria, of which 64 (30.8%) were selected for biomechanical assessment and comprised the sample for this study. Of the 64 injured people who were submitted to the biomechanical study, 51 (79.7%) consented to the test, 8 (12.5%) refused to undergo biomechanical assessment and 5 (7.8%) were excluded from the study due to methodological problems in data collection.

The sample of people assessed consisted of 65% women and 35% men. The mean age was 36 years in women (standard deviation=9.9) and 35 years in men (standard deviation=10). 82% of the accidents were from behind and 253 days after the accident occurred (at least 107 days and a maximum of 398 days) at the time of assessment. According to the physical examination by the medical examiner, 57% of the sample presented grade I injury following the Quebec classification and 43% grade II. Both grades refer to pain, sensation of stiffness and cervical discomfort, in grade II with musculoskeletal signs (decreased joint movement and painful points) and in grade I with no signs. 100% of the sample referred cervical pain as initial symptoms and, to a lesser extent, other symptoms such as stiffness, dizziness, headache, paresthesia, nausea, vertigo or vomiting.

Results of the biomechanical tests

There were 47 kinematic assessments of cervical movement (92.2% of patients), fifteen assessments of hand strength (29.4%) and eight balance assessments (15.7%). The following were obtained: 31 cases (61%) with normal functionality, 10 (19%) with slightly altered functionality, 6 cases (12%) with altered functionality and 4 cases (8%) of non-cooperation during the biomechanical tests. The percentage of cases corresponding to each type of biomechanical result is presented in Fig. 2.

Figure 2.

Distribution of biomechanically assessed cases by type of test result obtained.

(0.06MB).
Comparison between pre-evaluation of sequelae and final assessment

The percentage of cases with and without sequelae in the pre-evaluation of medical examiners and in the final evaluation is presented in Fig. 3.

Figure 3.

Percentage of cases with and without sequelae in the pre-evaluation and final evaluation of medical examiners (before and after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests).

(0.06MB).

Table 1 shows, for each type of sequela granted, the number of cases with sequela, both in the pre-evaluation and in the final evaluation. In addition, the mean score of sequelae for each type of sequela is presented. The total number of cases with sequelae varies between the pre-evaluation and the final evaluation due to the change of medical examiner's criteria.

Table 1.

Summary of the number of cases with sequelae and their mean score in the pre-evaluation and final evaluation of the medical examiner after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests.

Type of sequela  No. of cases with sequelaMean score of the sequela
  Pre-evaluation  Final evaluation  Pre-evaluation  Final evaluation 
Aggravation of prior arthrosis  2.67 
Post-traumatic cervical injuries without spinal involvement  13  10  1.08  1.3 
Post-traumatic cervical injuries with spinal involvement  1.71 
Clinical picture derived from cervical hernia  4.5  2.4 
Post-traumatic cervical syndrome  17  2.4 
Mobility limitation of the cervical spine  10  2.8 
Total  44  29  –  – 

By comparing sequelae according to the type of biomechanical result, differences are observed between the medical examiner assessment of sequelae prior to the biomechanical assessment and the final assessment, as shown in Fig. 4. The difference in the assessment of sequelae between the pre-evaluation and the final assessment was statistically significant (p<0.05) according to the ANOVA test for the set of cases with normal functionality. These differences were not statistically significant in the rest of the groups, whose sample size was much lower.

Figure 4.

Mean score of the sequela for each type of biomechanical result in the pre-evaluation and final assessment of medical examiners (before and after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests).

(0.09MB).
Medical assessments’ opinion on the usefulness of biomechanical assessment tests

Data were collected from 49 of the 51 assessed cases and in 98% of cases (all but one) the medical examiner considered biomechanical assessment to be “useful”. The criteria used to indicate the usefulness of the tests were: “confirm or show recovery” in 26 cases, “confirm or show active symptom” in 21 cases and “confirm or show simulation” in 2 cases.

Discussion

The characteristics of the sample of this study (65% women and mean age of 36 years in women and 35 in men) are similar to those of other studies on post-traumatic cervicalgia due to traffic accidents in a medical-legal context in Spain,24,25 which strengthens the representativeness of our study sample. In the series from Pera Bajo et al.,24 of 406 cases, the percentage of women was 59.6% and the average age of about thirty-six. In the sample from Rodríguez-Díaz et al.,25 with 307 cases, female predominance was also found with 61.9% and a mean age of 35.3 years.

It is notable that the number of rejections to perform the test was a minority. Due to this it can be considered that the information protocol was effective, as it led to the injured people agreeing to perform the assessment. With the legislative change brought about by Law 35/2015,2 the tests performed at the request of the assessing doctor would be part of the complementary examinations to which the patient may undergo to receive compensation; therefore, the rejection of the assessment could have influence on its attainment. Even so, it is interesting to note that most people in the assessment process voluntarily accept the biomechanical tests indicated by the medical examiner.

According to the indication criteria of the medical examiners, the most applicable biomechanical test was the kinematic assessment of cervical movement, which was performed in most cases. The dynamometric evaluation tests for hand strength and balance assessment were used on a smaller number of occasions and in this order. Bearing in mind that moderate/severe levels of persistent pain and disability continue to exhibit loss of active movement several years after injury,26 it is logical that the assessment of cervical mobility is of interest in the assessment of sequelae. Thus, it would be interesting to contrast if this order represents the real interest of medical examiners by the different biomechanical assessment tests in the assessment of post-traumatic cervicalgia due to a traffic accident in future studies.

The most common result obtained in the biomechanical tests was normal overall functionality, which means that most of the cases whose assessment generated doubts had functionality within normality. It should be clarified that, in the case of the assessment of function related to cervical mobility and according to the biomechanical assessment reports themselves, normal overall functionality is not exempt from any type of alteration. In fact, in some cases, normal overall functionality can be accompanied by a limitation of movement in some of the planes, so it is not exempt from sequelae compensation due to mobility limitations. The cases with an altered or slightly altered functionality type of biomechanical result accounted for only a third of the sample. The proportion of cases that do not cooperate with the biomechanical assessment tests obtained in this study is clearly lower than the 50% simulation prevalence reported by some authors.6 This result may be indicative of a lower real prevalence of simulation in the target population, or of the fact that those injured people with an impression of simulation or exaggeration in the clinical consultation cooperate when dealing with an objective test. The sensitivity of the biomechanical assessment tests to detect non-cooperative behaviour has been previously demonstrated in the case of the methodology used for the kinematic assessment of the cervical spine13 and is widely accepted in the case of posturography.

Taking into consideration the comparison between pre-evaluation and final assessment of the sequelae according to the traffic scale in force at the time of the study,1 it can be seen that the medical examiner modifies their criterion after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests. They do so by following a trend: they assign a similar sequelae score among the entire sample of injured people in the pre-evaluation and, after knowing the results of the biomechanical tests, they change the score according to the test results. Hence, in the cases of normal overall functionality, with a lack of cooperation and rejections of biomechanical assessment, the sequelae score clearly decreases; it discretely increases in the case of slight alteration; and it increases considerably in the event of functional impairment. The lack of statistical significance in these results could be caused by the limited sample size in one of the groups.

Regarding the type of sequela granted, the most striking differences attributable to the fact that the medical examiner has the results of the biomechanical assessment are given in two cases. The first case is given in the sequelae due to post-traumatic cervical lesions with spinal involvement and in the clinical picture resulting from spinal disc herniation. In this case, there is a considerable reduction in the number of injured people that are given sequelae in the final assessment, although in those in which the sequelae persist, the average score increases. This seems to be related to the fact that most of the people evaluated have normal functionality and finally do not receive compensation for this type of sequelae; however, those who do receive it receive more because there is a real functional impact. The second case corresponds to the limitation of motion of the cervical spine and clearly increases in cases and score, since in the pre-evaluation there were no sequelae of this type. This may be justified by the fact that normal overall functionality that has been obtained in most of the sample may be accompanied by discrete movement limitations that may be the object of compensation for sequelae. From this information, it appears that there is a tendency to distribute the sequela points based on the objectification of the existence of functional alterations and their severity.

Regarding the determination of sequelae in other studies, there is great disparity and the percentages in which sequelae are reported range from 92% to 44%.27 It seems reasonable that in the pre-evaluation of this study, a higher percentage (96%) was obtained since the cases of greater complexity were referred. However, it is striking that, after functional assessment, the percentage of patients with definite sequela is at an intermediate point (58%). It could be thought that the observed differences between the different studies may be due to a disparity of interobserver criteria and that the biomechanical assessment allows this possible bias to be limited, moving away from the extreme positions. However, this extreme should be studied in depth in the future to establish a definitive conclusion.

In relation to the main objective of the project, the result of the experimental phase indicates that the biomechanical assessment tests were useful for the medical examiners in the assessment of the people with cervicalgia from a traffic accident and in real conditions of application. This is consistent with previous experience regarding the application of these tests in this field.15,22 In addition, it was observed that the participating physicians modified their criteria in different senses, both towards the increase and towards the decrease of sequelae. For this reason, we could consider that they have increased the accuracy of their opinions putting both recovery and the existence of pathology in objective terms.

However, there are a number of methodological limitations that could influence the generalisation of the results of this study and they should be noted. The first is that it has been carried out with the participation of only four medical examiners, who have participated voluntarily in this study and who have been deliberately trained for it in the context of this research project. The second has to do with the criteria for the prescription of biomechanical tests, which admitted a certain subjectivity. It would be interesting to find out whether equivalent results would be obtained with a sample derived from the application of other remission criteria of injured people for evaluation. Finally, it should be noted that the legislative context in which this study was carried out is no longer the current one. Thus, although preliminary, the results of this study are encouraging to validate the usefulness of biomechanical assessment in medical examiner assessment protocols.

The conclusions reached are:

  • 1.

    The biomechanical assessment tests proved useful in the assessment of people with minor cervical trauma due to traffic accidents by medical examiners and under real application conditions.

  • 2.

    Medical examiners evaluated the sequelae considering in the final decision making the results obtained in the biomechanical tests.

All these results, although preliminary, suggest that biomechanical tests in the assessment of people with post-traumatic cervicalgia due to a traffic accident could have a significant social repercussion. In addition, the possibility of providing medical examiners with complementary medical tests for objective assessment of the functional impact of injuries would contribute to providing better justice. Future research should be aimed at validating the results of this study with greater participation of medical examiners in the context of the new Traffic Law2 and their new role in the extrajudicial procedures covered by the new Organic Law of the Judiciary.11,12

Conflicts of interest

The development of the methodology for carrying out this study and the corresponding preliminary study were performed with the help of the MAFPRE Foundation in its 2013 Research Grants Programme. This article was developed thanks to the collaboration of Centro Zaragoza and the support of the members of its Committee on Bodily Injuries, who agreed to finance the biomechanical tests requested by the medical examiners participating in this study corresponding to the claims of those insured. The members of the Committee on Bodily Injuries are: Generali España, S.A. de Seguros y Reaseguros; Axa Seguros Generales, S.A. de Seguros y Reaseguros; Caja de Seguros Reunidos, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. (CASER); MGS Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.D.; Reale Seguros Generales S.A. and Zurich Insurance, PLC Office in Spain.

Acknowledgements

To the Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences of Valencia, for promoting this study and the medical examiners who participated. To the MAPFRE Foundation, for its Research Grants Programme and the granting of aid in 2013 that made the pilot study possible. To Centro Zaragoza, for supporting this study and promoting the participation of members of its Committee on Bodily Injuries by funding the requested biomechanical tests (Generali España, S.A. de Seguros y Reaseguros; Axa Seguros Generales, S.A. de Seguros y Reaseguros; Caja de Seguros Reunidos, Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A., CASER; MGS Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A.D.; Reale Seguros Generales S.A.and Zurich Insurance, PLC Office in Spain).

Annex
Congresses and Conferences

Part of the content of this article has been previously presented:

  • Camacho R, Pastor C, Marzo R, Mayans J, Giner J, Garcés L, San Martín CI. Medical-legal usefulness of biomechanical tests in cervicalgias following a traffic accident. XII Catalan Conference of Updates in Forensic Medicine, XVIII Conference of the National Association of Medical Examiners, XI Symposium on Medical-Practical Aspects in the Assessment of Bodily Injury; 21 Nov 2013; Barcelona.

  • Pastor C, Errejón A, Vicente M, De Francisco E, Peydro F, Vivas MJ, Garrido D. Research project: Biomechanical functional assessment in traffic accidents. Cervical spine protocol. XII Catalan Conference of Updates in Forensic Medicine XVIII Conference of the National Association of Medical Examiners, XII Symposium on Medical-Practical Aspects in the Assessment of Bodily Injury, XI Symposium on medical-practical aspects in the Assessment of Bodily Injury; 21 Nov 2013; Barcelona.

  • De Francisco Enciso E. The experience of the Forensic Medical Clinic of Valencia in the assessment of light cervical injuries due to traffic accidents. At the Conference of Updates on Assessment of Bodily Injury, organised by the Bodily Damage Assessment Association of the Community of Valencia and Institute of Legal Medicine of Valencia 24 April 2015.

  • Errejón A, Camacho R, Herrero L, De Francisco E, Medio E, Vivas MJ, Vicente M. Usefulness of biomechanical functional assessment techniques in the detection of sequelae simulation in whiplash syndrome. Spanish-Portuguese Conference on Bodily Damage Assessment/IV Iberian Congress on Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences; May 2015; Porto.

  • Vivas Broseta MJ. Medical-legal usefulness of biomechanical tests in cervical pathology due to traffic accidents. At FREMAP Conference of Clinical Biomechanics, organised by the Majadahonda Fremap Hospital, 5 and 6 November 2015.

  • Almudever M, Herrero L, Camacho R, Errejón AM, Pastor C, de Francisco E, Vicente, M. Application of biomechanical tests in the assessment of sequelae after traffic accidents. XIII Catalan Conference of Updates in Forensic Medicine, XX Conference of the National Association of Medical Examiners, XIII Symposium on Medical-Practical Aspects in the Assessment of Bodily Injury; 18 Nov 2015; Barcelona.

References
[1]
Real Decreto 8/2004, de 29 de octubre, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley sobre responsabilidad civil y seguro en la circulación de vehículos a motor.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 5 de noviembre de 2004, núm. 267, (2004), pp. 36662-36695
[2]
Ley 35/2015, de 22 de septiembre, de reforma del sistema para la valoración de los daños y perjuicios causados a las personas en accidentes de circulación.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 23 de septiembre de 2015, núm. 228, (2015), pp. 84473-84979
[3]
L. Serres Gutiérrez.
Valoración de costes asistenciales e indemnizatorios en el latigazo cervical.
Latigazo cervical y perjuicio estético. V Jornadas Mapfre sobre Valoración del Daño Corporal, Fundación Mapfre Medicina, (2002), pp. 103-108
[4]
P.M. Garamendi, M.I. Landa.
Epidemiología y problemática médico forense del síndrome de latigazo cervical en España.
Cuad Med Forense, 32 (2003), pp. 5-18
[5]
E. Dorado Fernández, C. Vega Vega, E. Santiago Romero, F. Serrulla Rech, F. Rodes Lloret, M.S. Gómez Alcalde, et al.
Valoración médico forense del esguince cervical.
Cuad Med Forense, 41 (2005), pp. 203-219
[6]
P. Capilla Ramírez, H. González Ordi.
Simulación en patología dolorosa crónica del raquis cervical.
Rev Esp Med Leg, 38 (2012), pp. 76-84
[7]
M. Richter, R. Ferrari, D. Otte, H-W. Kuensebeck, M. Blauth, C. Krettek.
Correlation of clinical findings, collision parameters, and psychological factors in the outcome of whiplash associated disorders.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 75 (2004), pp. 758-764
[8]
H. Vernon, R. Guerriero, S. Kavanaugh, D. Soave, A. Puhl.
Self-rated disability, fear-avoidance beliefs, nonorganic pain behaviors are important mediators of ranges of active motion in chronic whiplash patients.
Disabil Rehabil, 35 (2013), pp. 1954-1960
[9]
R. Ferrari, A.S. Russell.
Epidemiology of whiplash: an international dilemma.
Ann Rheum Dis, 58 (1999), pp. 1-5
[10]
N.M. Spearing, L.B. Connelly.
Is compensation «bad for health»? A systematic meta-review.
[11]
Ley Orgánica 7/2015, de 21 de julio, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 6/1985, de 1 de julio, del Poder Judicial.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 22 de julio de 2015, núm. 174, (2015), pp. 61593-61660
[12]
Real Decreto 1148/2015, de 18 de diciembre, por el que se regula la realización de pericias a solicitud de particulares por los Institutos de Medicina Legal y Ciencias Forenses, en las reclamaciones extrajudiciales por hechos relativos a la circulación de vehículos a motor.
Boletín Oficial del Estado, 19 de diciembre de 2015, núm. 303, (2015), pp. 119702-119716
[13]
J.M. Baydal-Bertomeu, D. Garrido-Jaén, J.M. Prat, Á.F. Page.
Neck motion patterns in whiplash-associated disorders: quantifying variability and spontaneity of movement.
Clin Biomech, 26 (2011), pp. 29-34
[14]
A. Gil-Agudo, J. Baydal-Bertomeu, C. Fernández-Bravo, F. Peydro, M. García-Ruisánchez, C. Zubizarreta, et al.
Determinación de parámetros cinéticos en las pruebas de equilibrio y marcha de pacientes con latigazo cervical.
Rehabilitación, 40 (2006), pp. 141-149
[15]
C. Pastor Tendero, E. Garrido-Lestache López-Belmonte, M.F. Peydro de Moya, M. Vicente Mendoza, M.J. Vivas Broseta.
Valoración funcional mediante técnicas biomecánicas en un caso de cervicalgia postraumática atípica.
Rev Esp Med Leg, 40 (2014), pp. 108-111
[16]
E. Viosca Herrero, J. Prat-Pastor, C. Soler Gracia, J. Montero Vilela, M.F. Peydro de Moya, L. Garcés Pérez, et al.
Cuadernos de Biomecánica, Valoración Funcional.
Instituto de Biomecánica de Valencia, (2012), pp. 15-31
[17]
W.O. Spitzer, M.L. Skovron, L.R. Salmi, J.D. Cassidy, J. Duranceau, S. Suissa, et al.
Scientific monograph of the Quebec Task Force on Whiplash-Associated Disorders: redefining whiplash and its management.
Spine, 20 (1995), pp. 15-73S
[18]
M.F. Peydro de Moya, M. Rubio Hervás, I. Bermejo Bosch, D. Garrido-Jaén, J.M. Baydal Bertomeu, F. Matey González, et al.
¿Cómo se miden la fuerza y la fatiga de la mano?.
Rev Biomecánica, 56 (2011), pp. 49-51
[19]
J. Montero Vilela, J.M. Baydal Bertomeu, D. Garrido Jaén, I. Bermejo Bosch, Á. Page del Pozo, R. Porcar Seder, et al.
Objetivamos los gestos característicos de la mano.
Rev Biomecánica, 58 (2012), pp. 47-50
[20]
J.M. Baydal Bertomeu, R. Barberá Guillem, C. Soler Gracia, M.F. Peydro de Moya, J.M. Prat, R. Barona de Guzmán.
Determinación de los patrones de comportamiento postural en población sana española.
Acta Otorrinolaring Esp, 55 (2004), pp. 260-269
[21]
J.M. Baydal Bertomeu, E. Viosca Herrero, M.A. Ortuño Cortés, V. Quinza Valero, D. Garrido Jaén, M.J. Vivas Broseta.
Estudio de la eficacia y fiabilidad de un sistema de posturografía en comparación con la escala de Berg.
Rehabilitación, 44 (2010), pp. 304-310
[22]
M. Almudever, L. Herrero, R. Camacho, A.M. Errejón, C. Pastor, E. de Francisco, et al.
Aplicación de las pruebas biomecánicas en la valoración de secuelas tras accidentes de tráfico.
Rev Esp Med Leg, 42 (2016), pp. 172
[23]
AENOR, Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación.
UNE 50135:1996: Documentación. Presentación de infomes científicos y técnicos.
AENOR, (1996),
(ICS 01.140.40)
[24]
F.J. Pera Bajo, R. Marote González, B. Perea Pérez, M.E. Albarrán Juan.
Evolución de los esguinces cervicales estudiados en la Clínica Médico Forense de Madrid en relación al grado de severidad, a la etiología y al sexo.
Rev Esp Med Leg, (2006), pp. 4-13
[25]
J. Rodríguez-Díaz, P.M. Garamendi-González, M. López-Alcaraz, I. Cordero-Hernández.
Características del síndrome de latigazo cervical y valoración medicoforense en la provincia de Huelva (España).
Rev Esp Med Leg, 37 (2011), pp. 7-16
[26]
M. Sterling, G. Jull, J. Kenardy.
Physical and psychological factors maintain long-term predictive capacity post-whiplash injury.
[27]
F.J. Pera Bajo, R. Marote González, M.E. Albarrán Juan, B. Perea Pérez.
Evolución del esguince cervical en la Clínica Médico Forense de Madrid en relación con la edad, concausas, dependencia laboral y tratamiento y determinación de secuelas.
Rev Esp Med Leg, 6 (2007), pp. 15-26

Please cite this article as: Vivas Broseta MJ, Pastor Tendero C, de Francisco Enciso E, Marzo Roselló R, Errejón García AM, Vicente Mendoza M. Utilidad de la valoración biomecánica en la determinación de secuelas por cervicalgia postraumática. Rev Esp Med Legal. 2017;43:106–114.

Part of the content of this article has been previously presented in Congresses and Conferences that are listed in the annex.

Copyright © 2017. Asociación Nacional de Médicos Forenses
Article options
Tools