This came in on the radio on the drive home from the mountain this evening. Helmet use!

[CalG]

Dartmouth-Hitchcock Study Finds Ski Helmets Don't Prevent Severe Head Injuries

A study authored by trauma surgeons at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center looks at the effect that wearing a helmet while skiing or snowboarding has on…

www.vpr.org

VPR.

Hmmmm. I'm still wearing one.

 

[mdf]

(I think this has been discussed here previously.)
At least as reported, this study is bogus. It may be the reporter's fault, or it might be the study itself.

The story says:
"what we did find from our study is that patients who were helmeted were more likely getting into high energy impacts"

The big question is how, and whether, they corrected the statistics for injuries that just would not have been injuries with a helmet. For example, I would bet that nearly 100% of the patients with scalp lacerations from tree branches were not wearing helmets.

 

[CalG]

The radio spot seemed to make it out to be something "new", So I didn't think we would have discussed it previously.
Hence the post.

But the data could come from any time, and the story can be just a fresh rehash of old events.

 

[Tricia]

The radio spot seemed to make it out to be something "new", So I didn't think we would have discussed it previously.
Hence the post.

But the data could come from any time, and the story can be just a fresh rehash of old events.

The previous discussion has been about the differentiation of concussion vs. impact injury.
Helmets don't tend to change the factors that insure when a brain is "shaken" (not stirred) but helmets help considerably when there is an impact that could cause blunt force trauma.
This is the thread I stared last month.

Fascinating helmet study

I read this a week ago and pondered how to approach this topic in a thread without stirring the helmet debate pot. While its an important topic for us here on Pugski.com, its also one of the hot button topics that tends to get folks riled up. Because its important, I decided to bring it up and...

www.pugski.com

 

[François Pugh]

a helmet thread!

Seems to show that these days folks that are at high risk of severe head injury, e.g. adrenaline addicts skiing at ludicrous speeds down chutes/cliffs inches from rock faces and big tree trunks are likely to be wearing a helmet.

 

[mdf]

Turns out you can drill through the news article to the abstract of the paper. The abstract makes it clear no correction for reporting thresholds was attempted. I could be wrong since I only spent 15 seconds reading it, but the abstract makes me confident the study is junk.

 

[P-Ute]

The study mentioned in this thread is the same flawed study that was posted & discussed last month (I double checked both abstracts). I would not call it junk, but definitely flawed. The abstract does mention at least three things that are likely correct.

1. "Our findings reinforce the importance of safe skiing practices and trauma evaluation after high-impact injury, regardless of helmet use."​

2. If you were a helmeted skier and went to that specific Level One Trauma Center you were likely to have more severe injuries than a non-helmet wearer (paraphrased by me).​

​

I think their data is misleading because it is quite likely the non-helmet wearer who hit a tree may well have died before he/she could be transported to the Level One Trauma Center and this fatality's data would be missing from this study.

​

This is one of several similar flawed "Helmet Studies" I have seen over the last 25 years. What is needed is a better study design that can capture all the needed data. Something more like, of all the skiers/riders who hit a tree and required medical care for a head injury, what percentage were wearing a helmet and what type of injuries occurred. You cannot get all this data by a simple query of the Trauma Center's database. Would need data from First Responders, initial treating Clinic/Hospital, coroner and others.

3. "Helmeted patients were ……….. a third as likely to sustain scalp laceration."​

​

Not sure I needed this study to figure that one out, seems obvious that wearing a helmet will prevent scalp lacerations. This study does point out the need for additional study, as most medical studies do.

​

​

​

​

 

[CalG]

I did not post this thread to start an opinion poll, that I assure you.
It was just on the radio this evening, It is ski related, and seems to me that general awareness is important to us all.

With that, using head lacerations to cast doubts is not consistent with my experience.
Lots of really beat and dented helmets are removed from bleeding patients.
Liners can really bite! Heck, goggles cut in the most vicious way when pressed by trees or iced 1/4 pipes.

It is sobering to think of the damage that would be present without the buffer.

 

[François Pugh]

All these studies will remain useless until they find a way to eliminate the self-selection bias of high-risk skiers deciding to wear helmets.

 

[Core2]

nothing like a good helmet debate thread. I wonder if someday someone will actually win the debate?

 

[Ogg]

nothing like a good helmet debate thread. I wonder if someday someone will actually win the debate?

Not without a whole lot more data on the subject.

I do think there are some people who have an unreasonable expectation of how much it protects them. Someone was asking on FB for a recommendation of a ski helmet that would protect them in a 50mph crash.

 

[Carolinacub]

I'll reiterate what I said in the earlier thread. It's not necessarily the high speed stuff that I wear a helmet for, it's more the small stuff. IE; people dropping the bar on my head, the flailing ski poles near the lift line etc.
IMHO while a helmet may not completely protect you in a semi major accident it will help mitigate the injuries to a certain extent. Think of it this way. You bash your head into something and it gives you a concussion. well if you have the helmet on you still have the concussion but you don't have the added cut on top of the head that you would have without the helmet. I also think that we would have a lot more minor head issues come into the patrol room if helmets weren't used by the majority of the people on the hill.
Again this is just my opinion and it's purely anecdotal but I think I'll keep one on my noggin.

 

[ADKmel]

they got the nick name "brain bucket" for a reason...

 

[Andy Mink]

people dropping the bar on my head

I use my helmet a LOT more for this than actual crashes. Thankfully. Skiing in Tahoe we see most people wearing helmets. I was a bit surprised at AZ Snowbowl how many knit caps/not helmets I saw. At Mt. Lemmon Ski Valley one of the patrollers had on a ear flap hat, no helmet. Different places, different expectations I guess.

 

[crgildart]

Man this east coast and mid atlantic weather sucks!

 

[Seldomski]

I've seen people punch a hole in a helmet with a tree branch/stump from relatively low speed crashes. I think I have personally been in 1 crash/impact where I thought 'thank god for this helmet' in 20 years of skiing. This was a crash where the ski ejected, went airborne, and happened to land on my helmet while I was on the ground. My wife was hit by a much larger person during a lesson. She got a concussion from the impact when her head hit the ground. She was wearing a helmet then... I don't know what would have happened without one. Did the helmet actually make the injury worse? I find that hard to believe. Could she have averted the injury by being more aware of nearby skier traffic? Maybe. Some people are just not tuned into their surroundings or generally observant.

We wear helmets when we ski because our brains represent our livelihood.

I think there are many for which the helmet provides little/no benefit while skiing. They may ski off peak times in areas at the resort with few other skiers. They may ski many days in a season and rarely fall. They ski the same areas and are very familiar with the terrain. But think of all the beginners out there, or people skiing with more confidence than ability. People who may be on a particular run for the first time. I think they benefit and are encouraged to wear helmets when they see a 'good skier' skiing with a helmet. So if you are on the fence about wearing a helmet, I would suggest you wear one anyway. You can set an example to others that really should be wearing one.

 

[Andy Mink]

I've seen people punch a hole in a helmet with a tree branch/stump from relatively low speed crashes.

While I haven't punched a hole, I've been whacked in the head by a branch or two when cruising through the trees. Nothing big, just the smaller ones that you just don't see in time. Would a beanie have mitigated the whack? Maybe, but I know the helmet did.

 

[CalG]

While I haven't punched a hole, I've been whacked in the head by a branch or two when cruising through the trees. Nothing big, just the smaller ones that you just don't see in time. Would a beanie have mitigated the whack? Maybe, but I know the helmet did.

I've got many "bark Smears" on my helmet. Hemlock branches smear red when you hit them hard enough. ;-)

 

[Carolinacub]

y one of the patrollers had on a ear flap hat, no helmet. Different places, different expectations I guess.

One or two of our patrollers occasionally go helmetless. Usually it's when were doing initial runs on the mountain and there are no "guests" to run into us.

 

[oldschoolskier]

This is not only a helmet issue, it is a safety equipment issue pure and simple (regardless of the sport). The better the equipment, the great risk we will tolerate once we’ve adjusted to the increased protection.

Think if it as:

Risk identified,
New safety equipment developed and implemented.
Injuries decrease.
Users adjust to increased protection and take greater risks.
New injuries start occurring (new risk) as we exceed the new limits. (Helmet type report is written at about this stage).
Go back to the beginning and repeat process.

So whats the solution, wear as much safety equipment you feels us required to make you feel safe and more importantly don’t get caught test the new limits.