Motorcycle Accident 2

Prev Next

This patient was not using a helmet.. Extensive facial and mandibular fractures are present. The patient has an endotracheal tube, and a orogastric suction tube.

The vertex (top) and posterior skull are not damaged. These portions were excluded in the initial scan and appear as though they are missing on the 3D rendering.

bionerd23 ☢, Ce nest pas un JB., and 71 other people added this video to their favorites.

View 20 more comments

  1. Lexinatrix 101 months ago | reply

    I got here from a motorcycle community I read... this is absolutely fascinating, thanks for posting!

  2. rosenberger31 101 months ago | reply

    I know this is not a medical blog, but CT scans are a lot more forgiving than MRI. Newer CT machines can do the above scan in 10 seconds. The patient has to hold still, but not like other modalities in Radiology.
    "It would be difficult to scan something that size and see detail like you do here. In fact, as the population grows increasingly larger, it becomes impossible to image some patients. Partly because some of them won't fit into the machine"
    - CT scanners can image the whole body with great detail, very fast. The bore of a CT scanner can usually fit patients greater than 500lbs. MRI is the modality that is very restricting for both patient size and patient motion.
    Thanks to imaging technologies, surgeons can pre-plan surgeries, thus reducing time in the OR. This translates into better patient care and better end results (fewer facial reconstruction surgeries).
    Safety first!

  3. Surfactant 101 months ago | reply

    It is indeed true that MRI is less forgiving than CT in regard to motion artifacts. The reduction in image quality due to patient size in MRI is usually due to grounding of the patient when they touch the sides of the bore. This is not necessarily negated with open bore magnets. The chances of grounding increase with patient size. The induction of noise and reduction of the signal to noise ratio degrades image quality. In both modalities, there is a vast difference between a 82", 500lb patient, and a 72" tall patient of the same weight. Circumference is the determinant, rather than total weight.

    That said, you are quite correct that imaging technologies like these are a great benefit to pre-surgical planning. I am excited about the future of these technologies, and the integration of molecular imaging into them.

  4. Andrés Otárola 101 months ago | reply

    wow! was a panfacial??
    or lefort III?

  5. Just Back 95 months ago | reply

    Maybe if our species had evolved the ability to move at really high velocities, say the speed of a motocycle, we would have also evolved significant exoskeletons.

  6. morrisoxford61 [deleted] 94 months ago | reply

    this is stunning
    in our country you have to wear a helmet no matter how stupid you are
    but this should be shown to all youngsters before they even think of riding a motorcycle
    I ride all year round
    i also hate blood and faint when they stick needles in me
    but I found this to be the most fascinating thing I have ever seen
    I did not realise just how far technology has moved
    thanks for this it quite stunned me in its clarity

  7. Zlatko Unger 89 months ago | reply

    Holy crap. That looks incredibly painful. How fast was the person going when they crashed?

  8. morrisoxford61 [deleted] 89 months ago | reply

    its not how fast he was going, its how fast he stopped thats the difference?

  9. e_monk 86 months ago | reply

    Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Stuff That Was Inside Me, and we'd love to have this added to the group!

  10. i_like_women69 [deleted] 73 months ago | reply

    Saved by helmets twice and this demonstrates why.

  11. jesszholmes 49 months ago | reply

    Wow, this gave me chills. Anyone who chooses to forgo the proper motorcycle gear should be shown this rendering.

  12. crazydave1100 47 months ago | reply

    can anyone guarantee that a helmet would have produced a different outcome

  13. Surfactant 47 months ago | reply

    It's clear that helmets reduce the severity of injuries to the face, skull, and brain. There is little question about that. A helmet wouldn't have made much difference here, though. I take the libertarian approach here. Riders should be able to choose to wear one if they want, but not have that choice made for them by law. It's smart to wear one, but laws simply can not replace responsible people making contextual choices in the moment. The price for that freedom is a small amount of catastrophic head injury and death.

  14. budderflyman 47 months ago | reply

    Surfactant Except that things like wearing helmets on bikes and wearing seat belts in vehicles helps to lower insurance premiums for everyone. Perhaps there should be two tiers of insurance. One for those who wish to not wear helmets or seat belts and one for those who choose to wear them. That would seem equitable.

    Good to see your bony icon hand again.

  15. Surfactant 47 months ago | reply

    That's completely reasonable. I like that idea.

  16. Lion_Lady 46 months ago | reply

    A properly fitted full face helmet would certainly have reduced or eliminated the damage to the lower jaw and face. As for brain injury, a lot depends on the speed of brain deceleration. Helmets can't protect completely against that trauma.

keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts