Disability evaluation for vertebral injuries due to traffic accidents

Disability Evaluation for Vertebral Injuries Due to Traffic Accidents Aim: Assessing the incapacity resulting from permanent damage caused by road accidents is an important aspect of forensic medicine research. The objective of this research was to compare the recommendations and evaluate the prevalence of impairment in cases involving spinal injuries. Materials and Methods: This research examined the disability reports from 2019-2021 that were approved by the 3rd Specialization Board of the Forensic Medicine Institute. A comprehensive examination was carried out on a total of 602 instances of spinal injuries that occurred as a consequence of vehicle accidents. The disability rates, injury details, and demographics of the patients were thoroughly examined and statistically evaluated. Results: Male patients accounted for 65.1% of the total, whilst the 31-40 age group comprised 22.9% of the cases. The study revealed that automotive passengers were implicated in 57.1% of incidents, with a higher incidence seen in metropolitan areas, including Istanbul. The lumbar region was the most frequently afflicted portion of the spine, accounting for 48.64% of cases. Based on clinical classification, the thoracolumbar area primarily consists of vertebrae T11 (5.3%), T12 (13.9%), L1 (21.3%), and L2 (10.2%), which are the most often affected locations for body fractures. Posterior arch fractures, on the other hand, are most commonly seen in the lumbar region (61.9%). An analysis revealed that 40.86% of the cases underwent surgery, with shaft fractures accounting for 80.89% of these instances. The most prevalent accompanying injuries were musculoskeletal system injuries, which occurred in 40.67% of the cases. Furthermore, it was shown that patients with accompanying injuries had longer hospitalization stays. It was found that the "List X. Vertebral Defects" section was utilized in 66.1% of the instances and the disability and handicap guidelines was used in 51.1% of the cases. It was noted that there was no need to apply discretion in the disability and handicap chart and the rates obtained were statistically much lower than the other chart. It was noticed that there was no statistically significant variation in the rates obtained in both tables according to age and gender. Conclusion: In disability evaluation, the varied ratios chosen from the portions of the guidelines linked to spinal injuries produce inconsistencies and promote inequity among patients. It would be beneficial to construct a complete guideline that all specialists may use in common.