RESEARCH POSTERPRESENTATIONDESIGN 2012

www.PosterPresentations.com
Protective leg restraint garters on ejection seats
aim to maximize lower extremity (LE) injury
prevention. A literature search found no published
studies that evaluated efficacy of leg restraints in
reducing lower extremity injuries.
Assumptions:
Restraints put the body in a better ejection position.
Restraints minimize flail injuries.





INTRODUCTION
The objective of the study was to determine if the
number of LE injuries differed between ejections
occurring in seats with and without leg restraints.
The study hypothesis was that ejections with leg
restraints would result in statistically fewer LE
injuries compared to those without.


OBJECTIVES
A retrospective cohort study was conducted with chi-square analysis to compare the number of lower extremity
injuries occurring between ejections with and without leg restraints. U.S. Naval Safety Center Aviation data
from Navy and Marine Corps ejections between 1980 and 2010 was analyzed. Exclusion criteria were
unknown seat type (could not determine the presence or absence of restraints) and cases in which it was
unknown whether the ejection occurred in versus out of the ejection envelope. SAS

v9.2 Software was used.

METHODS
A total of 983 ejections were analyzed that resulted in 2232 individual injuries. 710 (72%) ejections occurred in
seats with leg restraints and 273 (28%) occurred in seats without restraints. 320 (32.6%) ejections resulted in
one or more lower extremity injuries. There was no statistical difference in the occurrence of lower extremity
injuries between seats with and those without leg restraints.




RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
Data analysis suggests that leg restraints do not
significantly decrease the number of lower
extremity injuries during ejection.
Limitations:
Data is from Naval Safety Center and subject to
recall bias.
No correlation to severity of LE injuries.
No differentiation between ejection envelopes of
different seats and aircraft.
Injuries due to Parachute Landing Fall (PLF) not
corrected for.
Future Analysis:
Impact of restraints on other body regions (arm
restraints, etc.)
Sub-analysis of injury severity and overall
disability from LE injuries with and without leg
restraints and impact of landing injuries.
This points out the need for careful analysis of
new passive restraint systems.


REFERENCES
1. Data from the Naval Safety Center Aviation Database
2. Collins T., Sawyer C., Ferrari V., Shannon, R. Five-Year
Injury Experience in Escape from USAF Ejection Seat
Equipped Aircraft. Aerospace Medicine. June, 1968. p.
627-632.
3. Hunt J. Ejection Associated Injuries in U.S. Naval and
Marine Corps Aviation, 1 OCT 1990 30 SEP 2004: A
Descriptive Study. Project Report for Department of
Preventive Medicine and Biometrics of the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences. June 2005.



DISCLOSURE
Views of the authors do not necessarily reflect the official
policy or position of the Department of the Navy,
Department of Defense, nor the U.S. Government.
I have no financial relationships to disclose.
I will not discuss off-label use and/or
investigational use in my presentation.



Residency in Aerospace Medicine, Naval Aerospace Medical Institute (NAMI)

LCDR Robert J. Krause, MC, USN; CDR John E. Moore, MC, USN; CDR Christopher A. Orsello, MC, USN
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF PROTECTIVE LEG RESTRAINTS ON LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES
IN U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS EJECTIONS FROM 1980 TO 2010.

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(+) (-)
T
O
T
A
L


N
U
M
B
E
R

LEG RESTRAINTS
LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES WITH
AND WITHOUT LEG RESTRAINTS
NO
INJURY
INJURY
0 20 40 60 80 100
1
2
3
4
5
NUMBER of INJURIES
I
N
J
U
R
I
E
S

p
e
r

E
J
E
C
T
I
O
N

NUMBER OF INJURIES PER EJECTION
WITH AND WITHOUT RESTRAINTS
(-) (+)
0
100
200
300
400
500
(+) (-)
T
O
T
A
L


N
U
M
B
E
R

LEG RESTRAINTS
WITHIN EJECTION ENVELOPE
NO
INJURY
INJURY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
(+) (-)
LEG RESTRAINTS
OUTSIDE EJECTION
ENVELOPE
F-18E/F SJU-17 (NACES)
Restraints
F-16 ACES II
No Restraints
With Restraints - 31.8%
Without Restraints - 34.4%
p= 0.44
Yates
2

= 1.7, df = 5, p = 0.89 , n = 983
p= 0.30 p= 0.16