Thank you Reed, JER, Janet, and Deltawave for your very informative/clear/easy-to-understand posts.
I always learn tons when I saunter over to the eventing forum. :yes:
Hey guys, I agree, however, those claiming that air vests make fractures worse or cause them have no evidence of that either…I have no idea how good they are, have heard evidence from people who have been in falls with them that they did provide some cushioning.
The two mentioned, the photo of Sinead jumping it looked like a regular event vest and not an air vest. I have no idea if Laura had an airvest on, assuming she did, we don’t know if without one she would be worse or not even alive ( seems that a number of deaths in eventing have been result of rotational falls.)
From what I understand, the airvest inflates BEFORE the rider impacts with ground… the vest is not inflating around an already injured bone, it inflates before rider hits ground and therefore cushions the fall and prevents a fracture…
However, lets say a fracture occurred even wearing an air vest and having it inflate before hit the ground. Why would the deflation make a fracture worse? I could understand perhaps in the point two bag, where rapid inflation compressed skin and tissue and fat and bones inward to a degree, however in the hit air, the bag is a cushion that the body fell with, therefore the deflation might mean some small movement of body closer to ground than the six inches of cushion the air vest provided. Not sure how that could make a bone that already had broken worse. , the point is , would it prevent more bones from breaking or worse fractures?
I appreciate pointed out the diff between auto airbags and the airvest, I understand how they are not similar except for a few shared origins of technology.
The mechanism of potential movement of bone fragments by the explosive force of a vest inflating has been explained in some detail on multiple threads, including this one. As have the circumstances where vest deployment can happen AFTER impact with the ground occurs.
The distance between normal function of a nerve and permanent injry can be measured in millimiters. The thickness of the pleura, keeping the air in our lungs where it belongs, is a fraction of a millimeter. The space between a rib or vertebral fragment being where it belongs and being in a really bad place is not far at all.
Nobody is CLAIMING air vests make fractures worse. Plenty of us, however, are speculating that this is a very real risk. This risk does not exist in any way that I can fathom with a regular vest. Which, by the way, have very few data supporting their efficacy and yet are required. Why no stink from me? Because a regular vest is not something that can really fail to deploy or deploy incorrectly or too early/late and cause unintended consequences. It is passive.
Non-scientists always talk about “ironclad proof” and “cures” and other such absolutes. There are very few of those to go around. There are different levels of evidence, from “none” to “extremely solid”. I would put the evidence that airvests make a meaningful impact on serious injury prevention at “just about zero”.
As I said in one of my first posts, observations (a poor form of data, but not “nothing”) seem to support the idea that these vests can make for a softer landing and fewer bumps and bruises. But I, personally, don’t much value this benefit, if the cost of getting it is exposure to even a small increased risk of the type of injury that could change my life permanently.
I’ll take 1000 bruises, whiplashes, and any number of minor things over even a small chance of making really serious injuries worse. Just me. All of us have our own personal risk meter.
DW said it best…but I will reiterate - the vest does not expand on impact - it expands at the release of the tether which is when it reaches the point it is torn away from the horse in a fall, or perhaps when a horse stands after a fall.
Imagine you fall, your horse falls with you, you are still technically sitting on your horse (saw a fall like this this weekend). You break your neck, your horse stands and POOF goes your vest, moving your spine and causing paralysis. Too much risk for me.
There is no proof that vests make things better OR worse. Riders saying it “cushioned” their fall may be just feeling the placebo effect - remember they are still wearing a regular vest underneath.
It would seem however, that more serious injuries are occurring to those wearing air vests than those without. I would be lawyering up if I were one of these injured riders. Might be one way to get P2 to do some actually research.
[QUOTE=CindyCRNA;7075141]
Ok, you have some clout, haha! I have a question. From your prospective, barring failure to release from the saddle, do you feel the neck and sacral role to be beneficial? I worry about cervical hyperextension and thought maybe the neck role would help.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Reed that the ability of a soft neck roll to reduce cervical hyperextension is very poor. In addition, most equestrian spine injuries are combination compression/hyperflexion injuries. In other words, imagine falling off and hitting the top of your head - more likely to roll under (chin tucked) or back (chin extended)? Hyperflexion is much more common in equestrians, people diving into shallow water, and others sustaining injuries where they fall head first with their bodies between 0 and 90 degrees relative to the ground.
Honestly, I don’t have a strong opinion about whether air vest deployment could cause a spine injury to be even worse. I don’t have enough evidence to comment on that beyond a wild conjecture. I also don’t think there is any evidence that air vests prevent serious injury. But the real reason that I won’t wear one is that I think there is a very serious danger of failure of detachment and that danger offsets any potential benefit in my opinion.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7076468]
From what I understand, the airvest inflates BEFORE the rider impacts with ground… the vest is not inflating around an already injured bone, it inflates before rider hits ground and therefore cushions the fall and prevents a fracture…[/QUOTE]
That is the intent, but intent is irrelevant. What matters is possible failure modes.
For example, with the old Item of Apparel helmets, the intent was that even without a chin strap they would stay on during a fall. It didn’t always work out that way.
There are multiple real-life examples, detailed here and in other threads, of the vest deploying after impact, and it’s easy to imagine fall scenarios where even when everything works as designed, that the vest deploys after impact.
[QUOTE=blackwly;7076550]
… the real reason that I won’t wear one is that I think there is a very serious danger of failure of detachment and that danger offsets any potential benefit in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
BINGO!!! :yes: :yes: :yes:
Just the thought of an injury potentially becoming worse because of an airbag makes me not want one. I wonder if people get lulled into a false sense of security because if they fall off they’ll have a “cushion” to land on. It is impossible to remove the risk of injury from falling, unless you want to sit on a couch.
[QUOTE=Jealoushe;7076533]
DW said it best…but I will reiterate - the vest does not expand on impact - it expands at the release of the tether which is when it reaches the point it is torn away from the horse in a fall, or perhaps when a horse stands after a fall.
Imagine you fall, your horse falls with you, you are still technically sitting on your horse (saw a fall like this this weekend). You break your neck, your horse stands and POOF goes your vest, moving your spine and causing paralysis. Too much risk for me.
It would seem however, that more serious injuries are occurring to those wearing air vests than those without. I would be lawyering up if I were one of these injured riders. Might be one way to get P2 to do some actually research.[/QUOTE]
I will bet money that more serious injuries occur to those wearing the vests. Indeed, I’m quite certain. Those jumping at BN or going on a trail ride are much less likely to sustain a bad fall and less likely to sustain injuries… And, bingo, less likely to be wearing a vest.
The old intro research methods statement: Correlation does not = causation.
The vest going off after sustaining an injury could also serve to STABILIZE the body from further impacts hitting upon injured areas.
What proof does anybody here offer of a rider having suffered more injuries as a result of wearing an air vest than if they had not have one on? Can you list any of these riders, and any link to them or their doctor stating that?
If that was really the case, we would see articles about it and lawsuits against the companies.
I have no skin in the game with air vest companies and am not defending them, but it is irritating to see conjecture dressed up as fact.
Fear about not being separated from horse might be legit, am not sure how that would play out in each and every possible scenario that could occur.
Countrywood, the point is, none of us can have it both ways. Those who criticize the vest insist that there are riders who suffered more injuries as a consequence of wearing the vest, and then argue that those who say the suffered less injuries are subject to a placebo effect. Those who are proponents of the vest say that there are riders who suffered less injuries as a result of wearing the vest. There are even those who insist that the vest cannot protect at all, based on tangential academic data (I am not referring to RAyers and Deltawave who are scientists in related fields). None of us can say with certainty one way or another, without data.
And the fact that there are no lawsuits. Think about that. As litigious as our society is, one wonders about this. And this could be due to the fact that there is no way to prove, one way or another.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077050]
I will bet money that more serious injuries occur to those wearing the vests. Indeed, I’m quite certain. Those jumping at BN or going on a trail ride are much less likely to sustain a bad fall and less likely to sustain injuries… And, bingo, less likely to be wearing a vest.
The old intro research methods statement: Correlation does not = causation.
The vest going off after sustaining an injury could also serve to STABILIZE the body from further impacts hitting upon injured areas.[/QUOTE]
Yes I am aware that does not make it the cause for certain, but it is something worth investigating don’t you think?
I was speaking strictly about falls at the UL, not BN or trail riding falls. I have heard about more severe injuries since the vests then before when no one was wearing these (not comparing injuries from falls at UL compared to LL).
I really don’t think the vest will stabilize anything, it deflates…I hope someone who can actually explain this will chime in.
Countrywood: The doctors would not allow the release of the video of Karens fall for some reason…which would have helped analyze just when the vest off etc. P2 does not care to do research into its own product - that in itself is worrisome.
There are no law suits yet because P2 sponsors most of these riders…it’s only a matter of time before they do start.
I don’t understand how people can defend a product that has 0 absolutely NO testing done to show that it actually helps or better yet does not cause further damage. A marketers dream client.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077156]
Those who criticize the vest insist that there are riders who suffered more injuries as a consequence of wearing the vest, and then argue that those who say the suffered less injuries are subject to a placebo effect.[/QUOTE]
I don’t recall reading the above anywhere on this thread. No one ‘insisted’ that the air vests cause more injuries.
There was,however, an intelligent discussion of the potential harm caused by air vests – by either faulty deployment, late deployment or non-detachment – and also of the potential for a deployed vest to complicate injuries such as unstable fractures.
The ‘placebo effect’ talk came from non-injured (in a clinical sense) riders saying that they were ‘less sore’ or ‘hurt less’ after a fall with an air vest. It wasn’t about clinically-noted injuries.
Okay so it’s all conjecture and speculation…
Thanks for clearing that up! 
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077156]
And the fact that there are no lawsuits. Think about that. As litigious as our society is, one wonders about this. And this could be due to the fact that there is no way to prove, one way or another.[/QUOTE]
That’s not actually true. While there may be no judgments against the company, that does not mean there have not been claims. Those would be handled privately and a settlement agreement could require silence from both parties.
An example is a car accident. The personal injury and property damage claims are settled by an insurance claim. Few are litigated; though a complaint may be filed to toll a statute of limitations. Even then, if complaint is filed to toll the statute, service on the defendant isn’t necessary for one year; giving the parties more time to settle. (in my state, anyway. S/L and civil procedure varies by jurisdiction)
Most disputes of this nature (including things like food poisoning, product liability, falls, etc) are resolved that way. Through a private settlement with the company and/or its insurer; not through litigation. No one wants to litigate - lawsuits are like wars. They have uncertain outcomes.
In truth, it is quite possible this company is receiving claims left and right; and settling all of them privately. The public will never be aware of that unless the claimant is permitted, by the terms of the settlement agreement, to discuss the nature of the claim.
These vests are being heavily marketed. Too heavily. The fear mongering nature of their advertising, the aggressive tactics of some of their sales reps, relying almost exclusively on testimonials to prove the value of the vest - these are extremely troubling to me.
Also troubling is that governing bodies are obviously being courted by the company, and still these vests are not proven to work. They have one little company they used; and that company made some pretty sweeping generalizations based on a test.
It seems to me that the vest is a solution looking for a problem. The vest failed to be profitable in other applications; and the manufacturer finally discovered the gold mine that is the gullible horse owner with discretionary income. In that they are very much like the manufacturers of equine nutraceuticals - only the danger here is that the product could kill you.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7077156]
And the fact that there are no lawsuits. Think about that. As litigious as our society is, one wonders about this. And this could be due to the fact that there is no way to prove, one way or another.[/QUOTE]
-
Do you know this for a fact? Have you checked all the legal and court databases and dockets for this? Or are you simply saying that you haven’t heard of any? There is a difference between stating ‘the fact that there are no lawsuits’ and ‘AFAIK, there are no lawsuits’. So which is it, and how much research have you done to come up with that statement?
-
The air vests sales numbers are low, given that this device is only relevant to a very, very small population.
-
The ‘well, no one has sued’ argument is perhaps not the smartest reason to purchase and use a product that is marketed as ‘safer’ but is unproven in that capacity. Moreover, as a cardiologist, a neurosurgeon and a biomedical engineer have pointed out on this thread, there are numerous ways in which the air vest has the potential to cause harm in several ‘fail dangerous’ modes.
Bottom line, nobody/not enough extensive testing has been done to claim these vests are, or will be, 100% safe in any and all possible accidens/falls/everyday riding situations. Then again, likely nothing can claim that but there is a bit more unknown here so more testing would be welcome.
Bottom line: No KNOWN publicly discussed lawsuits are seen…and no, not all lawsuits are kept secret and hidden and knowing how gossipy the horse world is, it’s pretty hard to swallow that if there were some lawsuits happening, that NOBODY would know of them.
There is a difference between wild speculation and critical thinking guided by experience and training. I.e. a random person in a parking lot might guess what the funny sound in your truck is and a mechanic might guess. One guess is more valuable to me than another, even though both could be thrown into the VERY wide-mouthed bucket that is “guessing.”
An air-vest does in no way stabilize anything. After inflation, it immediately begins to deflate, which will allow any fractures or fragments to move and shift.
A vest deflating might allow a fracture or fragment to move or shift, but based on what I have seen of rider behavior after a fall (including my own), the people do their own shifting. Everyone’s instinct is to try to get up, or move a bit to see what hurts etc. Even if someone loses consciousness, the minute they come to, that is their instinct, to move try to get up, etc. Even if they can’t get up they shift this way and that. I have never seen anyone lie rock still after a fall (hopfeull never will as that would mean they were dead)
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7077267]
A vest deflating might allow a fracture or fragment to move or shift, but based on what I have seen of rider behavior after a fall (including my own), the people do their own shifting. [/QUOTE]
Actually, what has been said here is that an inflating and deflating vest may cause unstable fractures or fragments to move. Not ‘allow’.
That people might move after a fall is not the same thing as a safety product’s potential to have adverse effects. However, it should be considered when evaluating the safety of that product – can you move in it to get away from a dangerous situation like a fallen horse? what happens when a rider tries to get up when the jacket deploys late? is a rider incapacitated in any way if the jacket deploys when they’re still on the horse?
As an EMT, I’ll tell you that my experience and education does not agree with the above, especially the part about patients who’ve been unconscious.
There seems to be some cognitive dissonance going on with Winding Down and Countrywood. You want so much for air vests to be safer.
I think we all feel that way about eventing – we want it to be safe – but safety isn’t a wish or an act of faith. It’s a science.
The best book I’ve ever read on safety is Sid Watkins’s Life at the Limit: Triumph and Tragedy in Formula One. Watkins was the medical director of F1 for many years and through his efforts, F1 became a far more safe sport. It’s been 19 years since the last fatality. Highly recommended for anyone looking to frame their thinking about safety in sport.
