Virginia Tech STAR rating system being developed for hockey helmets

[Chadd 916]

He wasn't pointing out inconsistencies so much as he was indicating deficiencies.

He did a fantastic job of appearing open to a paradigm shift while covering for their corporate donors partners. They are more comfortable with an organization that says "we can't prevent concussions" than one that says, "we think we can help reduce concussions."

As I said in a phone conversation earlier today, a helmet that would meet a five star level wouldn't have sold before this became public. The things that they would have to do to reach that level of safety would make it look very, very different and that would not go over well with most hockey players.

[Ps12 11]

Ive been waiting to hear warriors response on this. There definitely is need for 3rd party testing for standards.

In googling for any response on the recent study findings i found this interesting article.

http://laxallstars.com/nocsae-voids-two-helmet-warranties/

Its nice to see warrior come out on top with this helmet study.

Well, evidently, NOCSAE testing works like this: NOCSAE lays out their testing procedures. Companies then test their own helmets. If they say their product meets the NOCSAE standards, they can put a NOCSAE sticker on their helmets. And thats about it!

There is definitely a need for transparency in standards. I am curious to see what each company comes out with in response.

[innotastic 12]

I give credit to Dr. Stuart at USA Hockey for clearly writing a review of a few of the inconsistencies in the STAR rating system. Unfortunately, ESPN has let the horse out of the barn with their article.

I gotta agree with you there.Dr. Stuart did a great job with his response and ESPN did a great job fear mongering what should of otherwise been a conversation starter. I do hope VT takes in the criticism and revises their testing protocols as i do see a benefit to noting the general effectiveness of a helmet.

What i hope for the future is a multidimensional rating system, like how cars are rated in front and side impact, and roof strength and seats.

[fcalog 58]

Ive been waiting to hear warriors response on this. There definitely is need for 3rd party testing for standards.

In googling for any response on the recent study findings i found this interesting article.

http://laxallstars.com/nocsae-voids-two-helmet-warranties/

Its nice to see warrior come out on top with this helmet study.

There is definitely a need for transparency in standards. I am curious to see what each company comes out with in response.

The Cascade Lax helmet has been re-certified, Warrior as of Feb. 3 was still seeking re-certification.

"Cascade Lacrosse has reached an agreement with the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE) on a solution for the recently decertifiedCascade R helmet.

The solution will involve a simple modification to Cascade R helmets currently in the marketplace. NOCSAE has accepted the solution. Cascade's data confirms the helmet, as modified by this solution, meets NOCSAE certification standards. For NOCSAE certification purposes, the modified helmet is treated as a new model, identified as the Cascade R-M, although it will continue to be marketed by Cascade under the Cascade R name. Moving forward all newly manufactured Cascade R-M helmets will be certified as meeting the NOCSAE standards. A tamper-resistant sticker will be placed on all modified helmets as well as on newly manufactured Cascade R-M helmets to differentiate them from non-certified Cascade R models. Model R helmets that have not been ofifcially modified by Cascade do not meet NOCSAE standards and certification will remain void.

Cascade will make the modification to existing helmets at its Liverpool, N.Y. facility beginning December 16, 2014. The modification will be free of charge for consumers and retailers, including shipping.

"We are extremely pleased that Cascade and NOCSAE have reached an agreement to modify existing Cascade R helmets and put helmets back in play for our loyal customers," said Tim Ellsworth, Global Business Director, Cascade Lacrosse. "We have been working closely with NOCSAE and will work diligently to ensure that all Cascade R helmets returned are modified as quickly as possible. We thank everyone for their patience and support."

To fully reinstate the NOCSAE license, which was suspended in conjunction with the R model decertification, Cascade is cooperating with a review by NOCSAE of certification data for all of its models, and is having a third-party audit of Cascade's quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) processes.

Cascade is currently finalizing its own internal audit and expects the third-party QA/QC audit to be completed by December 18, 2014. NOCSAE will partially reinstate Cascade's license agreement for the production of new Cascade R-M helmets upon demonstratiion of satisfactory audit results for its QA/QC processes. The license agreement will be fully restored for other Cascade models upon demonstrating that such models certified by Cascade are supported by necessary data.

Cascade is also currently reviewing test results for all of its lacrosse helmets to ensure they meet both Cascade and NOCSAE standards."

An fascinating read on how all this transpired and what the actual (frightening) process for certification is, can be found here:

http://laxallstars.com/stx-lacrosse-helmet/

[Gomer 1]

I confess to reading the article and immediately hopping on the interwebs to look for a bargain. Promptly snagged a 360 for $61 shipped.

Yes, I will only be using it if it fits well. It will be replacing a 5100 that is a little long in the tooth. If it doesn't fit, given the demand, reselling shouldn't be too difficult.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Gomer

[Ps12 11]

An fascinating read on how all this transpired and what the actual (frightening) process for certification is, can be found here:

http://laxallstars.com/stx-lacrosse-helmet/

That is fascinating. If anything this just shows how important proper unbiased testing is.

Improper fitting can be a helmet killer.

[DarkStar50 679]

Personally the Krown was not comfortable on my head. But if I listen to VT and their STAR rating system I'm obligated to wear it regardless of fit or comfort. Ok that makes a lot of sense in any effort to reduce the risk of concussions.

NOCSAE does not test hockey helmets in the US. HECC does. Different methods completely.

[goblue9280 33]

It's a good thing the helmet experts at USA Hockey, who know so much about individualized fit, would never put an entire team in the same helmet model.

For those interested, the VT group already published a paper on the STAR hockey helmet rating, and it can be read for free, here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7

Regarding fit, this section indicates to me indicates they are aware of the importance helmet fit plays with regards to not only lab testing but in real life head injuries.

from page 10:

The biofidelity of the impact model used for Hockey STAR was ensured through appropriate headform selection and comparison of acceleration traces with other data collected from hockey players. The NOCSAE headform was chosen because of its superior helmet fit at the base of the skull, and around the jaw, cheeks, and chin compared to that of the Hybrid III headform.11 A helmet that does not fit properly can shift on the head during tests, and if the contact area of the helmet padding with the headform varies from what is realistic, the effective stiffness of the padding will vary, potentially resulting in a mischaracterization of a helmet’s energy management capabilities.

Edited April 1, 2015 by goblue9280

[Stryker 37]

The problem with this is that ESPN didn't run a giant fear mongering documentary with over the top headlines regarding the proper fit of helmets. They simply shouted that hockey helmets are unsafe. And realistically not many hockey parents will be actually reading the VT scientific article...

For those interested, the VT group already published a paper on the STAR hockey helmet rating, and it can be read for free, here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7

Regarding fit, this section indicates to me indicates they are aware of the importance helmet fit plays with regards to not only lab testing but in real life head injuries.

from page 10:

The biofidelity of the impact model used for Hockey STAR was ensured through appropriate headform selection and comparison of acceleration traces with other data collected from hockey players. The NOCSAE headform was chosen because of its superior helmet fit at the base of the skull, and around the jaw, cheeks, and chin compared to that of the Hybrid III headform.11 A helmet that does not fit properly can shift on the head during tests, and if the contact area of the helmet padding with the headform varies from what is realistic, the effective stiffness of the padding will vary, potentially resulting in a mischaracterization of a helmet’s energy management capabilities.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Well what has been the impact the rest of the week on helmet sales?

[EBondo 232]

Have sold a couple more throughout the week, many have asked, but frankly are stock was never large on them to begin with

[shafted 6]

Personally I am glad to see someone taking their time to do this. It gives me some sort of indicator of how my helmet performs and absorb the impacts. Since the helmet is probably the most important piece of equipment, safety wise, this can only be good for the consumer. My head actually fits the Warrior Krown helmets well compared to other brands that I have tried on, but I got the LTE instead of the 360 as that one felt more comfortable. It will be interesting to how the brands react to this for future helmet designs.

[SirJW 207]

USA Hockey responds.

Virginia Tech recently released a five-star rating system for hockey helmets. USA Hockey has reviewed the findings and below is commentary from Dr. Michael Stuart to help guide parents, players, coaches and officials. Stuart, from the Mayo Clinic, is USA Hockey’s chief medical and safety officer.

Comments on
Hockey STAR: A Methodology for Assessing the Biomechanical Performance of Hockey Helmets¹

Michael J. Stuart MD
USA Hockey Chief Medical and Safety Officer

The Hockey STAR rating does not prove if a specific helmet will or will not prevent or even reduce the risk of concussion if worn by a hockey player.

The contention that the current hockey helmet has limited ability to prevent a concussion is not a new concept. Numerous experts and the Ice Hockey Summit: Action on Concussion have stated that a hockey helmet is effective for reducing the risk of skull fracture, but not concussion.² However, improved force dissipation by the hockey helmet is an important goal to help decrease the number and severity of concussions in hockey. A hit to the head is a common mechanism of concussion in hockey, but brain injury can also result from a blow to the face or a blow to the body with resultant force transmission to the head. Therefore, an important element of risk reduction for concussion in hockey is to decrease the frequency of hits to the head and unanticipated hits to the body.³ This strategy will help to prevent concussion, irrespective of hockey helmet characteristics and effectiveness.

Concussion is a growing concern for athletes in multiple sports, including ice hockey. The authors of the Virginia Tech study assert that the risk of concussion is higher in hockey than football, but this statement is not uniformly supported by the literature. A descriptive epidemiology study of United States high schools for 20 sports during 2008-2010 found that football had the highest concussion rate (6.4), followed by boys' ice hockey (5.4) and boys' lacrosse (4.0).⁴

The Hockey STAR evaluation system was designed as a quantitative measure of the ability of individual hockey helmets to reduce the risk of concussion.¹ The methodology includes the application of helmet impact testing in the laboratory setting to the on-ice experience. The ability for this system to predict brain injury assumes 1) the recorded linear and rotational accelerations measured by the pendulum and head form truly replicate the actual forces experienced by the brain of a hockey player and 2) the capacity for a helmet to decrease acceleration in the laboratory will actually decrease the risk of concussion when playing the sport.

Concussion risks were multiplied by the exposure statistics gleaned from two published studies for each impact condition in order to determine “incidence values.” The exposure component was assumed from linear and rotational acceleration data collected from hockey players. However, these values may not accurately reflect the actual forces to the brain. There is not a direct correlation between head acceleration and the diagnosis of concussion due to multiple factors: varied injury mechanisms (for example, a blow to the body can cause a concussion regardless of helmet type), individual susceptibility (the concussion threshold is unknown because a wide range of G-forces result in clinical symptoms), along with the fact that the currently available concussion diagnostic tools are largely subjective and have poor sensitivity.

The author’s assumption that a player experiences a mean of 227 head impacts per season was determined by averaging published data from instrumented helmet research in collegiate, Midget and Bantam players. However, other studies do not correlate with this estimation of head impact frequency or magnitude. Male Bantam (age 13–14) players experienced a mean of 140 head impacts over the course of the season with an average linear acceleration of 22G. The majority of impacts were of a relatively low magnitude (linear acceleration less than 30G in 83% and greater the 75G in only 1.7%⁵). The clinical consequences of repeated head impacts are unknown. Peak accelerations as measured at the surface of the head were 160 to 180% greater from heading a soccer ball than from routine (non-injurious) impacts during hockey or football, respectively.⁶ In addition, the data used in the Hockey STAR predictions can’t be extrapolated to younger hockey players, alternative hockey environments or other sports.

The aggregated data was used to calculate a Hockey STAR value for each helmet. The contention that “player wearing helmet A would be 44.6% less likely to sustain a concussion than a player wearing helmet B if both players had the same head impact exposure over one season” is predicated on many assumptions. In addition, the ability of the STAR values to estimate both “undiagnosed and diagnosed injuries” has not been validated. There is no data presented in this study to support the rate of undiagnosed concussion or to prove that only 10% of concussions are actually diagnosed in hockey players.

This experiment represents only one methodology for testing hockey helmets. The authors admit: “there are a near-infinite number ways to test a helmet,” which could affect the test results. Therefore, this study does not prove if a specific helmet will or will not prevent or even reduce the risk of concussion if worn by a hockey player.

1. Rowson B, Rowson S, Duma SM. Hockey STAR: A Methodology forAssessing the Biomechanical Performance of Hockey Helmets. Annals of Biomedical Engineering (_ 2015) DOI: 10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7.
2. Smith AM, Stuart MJ, Greenwald RM, Benson BW, Dodick DW, Emery CA, Finnoff JT, Mihalik JP, Roberts WO, Sullivan CA, Meeuwisse WH. Proceedings from the ice hockey summit on concussion: a call to action. Clin J Sport Med. 2011 Jul;21(4):281-7.
3. Smith AM, Stuart MJ et al. Ice Hockey Summit II: Zero Tolerance for Head Hits and Fighting. Curr Sports Med Rep. 2015 Mar-Apr;14(2):135-44. doi: 10.1249
4. Marar M1, McIlvain NM, Fields SK, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of concussions among United States high school athletes in 20 sports. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Apr;40(4):747-55.
5. Naunheim RS et al. Comparison of impact data in hockey, football, and soccer. J Trauma. 2000 May;48(5):938-41.
6. Reed N et al. Measurement of Head Impacts in Youth Ice Hockey. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 826 – 833

• USA Hockey supports the development of new helmet concepts, materials and designs that hopefully will reduce the risk of concussion.
• The Hockey STAR rating allows consumers to compare overall helmet performance between models in the laboratory setting using a specific methodology.
• 
  
• The Hockey STAR rating does not prove if a specific helmet will or will not prevent or even reduce the risk of concussion if worn by a hockey player.
• 
  
• This type of research raises concussion awareness and will hopefully stimulate additional investigations and strategies to improve safety.
• 
  
• USA Hockey supports a multifaceted approach to improve concussion prevention, diagnosis and management including:
  • Concussion education (players, coaches, parents and officials)
  • Enforcement of existing rules (major and misconduct for boarding, charging, checking from behind)
  • Rule changes (penalty for intentional and unintentional head hits, delaying body checking until age 13, fighting in junior hockey)
  • American Development Model (efforts to teach body contact and control skills in a progressive manner)
  • Safety programs (Heads Up Don’t Duck, Fair Play, coaching education modules and clinics)
  • Equipment modifications (helmets, elbow pads, chinstraps, mouth guard)
• 
  
• USA Hockey and the USA Hockey Foundation will continue to develop programs and support research to reduce the risk of injury in the sport of ice hockey, including concussion.

3.31.2015

Edited April 3, 2015 by SirJW

[chippa13 1844]

They responded twice?

[fcalog 58]

Same reply, posted by HDHockey on the 31st

[Monty22 832]

Same reply, posted by HDHockey on the 31st

[jimmy 194]

You wouldnt believe how many team force their players to wear the same brand/model helmet. Apparently popularity and looks is more important than fit and protection.

It's a good thing the helmet experts at USA Hockey, who know so much about individualized fit, would never put an entire team in the same helmet model.

For those interested, the VT group already published a paper on the STAR hockey helmet rating, and it can be read for free, here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7

[Caihlen 67]

So again , I ask. Would you, if you have a helmet with 0 stars, meaning not recommended, go buy a two star helmet now, based on this testing and the results. I say two star because a quick look found no Krown 360's in large.

[JSK81 400]

No. I have the Easton E400 and it fits me, that's the most important thing.

So again , I ask. Would you, if you have a helmet with 0 stars, meaning not recommended, go buy a two star helmet now, based on this testing and the results. I say two star because a quick look found no Krown 360's in large.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

So again , I ask. Would you, if you have a helmet with 0 stars, meaning not recommended, go buy a two star helmet now, based on this testing and the results. I say two star because a quick look found no Krown 360's in large.

No. Fit is the key thing here. While any improvement to testing to reduce injury where possible is a fantastic (CSA and HECC are both working with rotational injury reduction and have been for 2 years) idea even with the results of the VT testing much more research is needed. Even more so with what causes the severity in some and the lesser in others. There is so much to be learned, to base the VT results as gospel is not a good idea. While the helmet makers in all sports would love to have a helmet that fits and performs well and passes the mirror test its pretty difficult task. It is all about finding that materiel that will absorb the most like a Poron from Bauer and finding something that works with it for comfort fit and weight.

[Chadd 916]

If you can upgrade from 0 to 2 stars and find a helmet that fits your head as well, then I would do it.

(bold, italics and underline are because someone will want to pick a fight and ignore that part)

[flip12 714]

Just from reading the intro to the article in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7), it's clear that the authors of the study are much more aware of and true to the nuances of concussion risk assessment. Also, they're aware of and testing for rotational components of impact in their study:

"Given the fact that all head impacts have both linear and rotational acceleration components, future helmet evaluation should quantify injury risk using both linear and rotational head kinematics," (page 2).

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Who is replacing there helmets now? What helmet will be the new one?

[Stewie 721]

Who is replacing there helmets now? What helmet will be the new one?

I am, Northland Stan Mikita 2.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Nice choice!!!