Zoekresultaten

Injury incidence and risk factors

Objectives To report (1) the injury incidence in recreational runners in preparation for a 8-km or 16-km running event and (2) which factors were associated withan increased injury risk. Methods Prospective cohort study in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Participants (n=5327) received a baseline survey to determine event distance (8 km or 16 km), main sport, running experience, previous injuries, recent overuse injuries and personal characteristics. Three days after the race, they received a follow-up survey to determine duration of training period, running distance per week, training hours, injuries during preparation and use oftechnology. Univariate and multivariate regression models were applied to examine potential risk factors for injuries. Results 1304 (24.5%) participants completed both surveys. After excluding participants with current health problems, no signed informed consent, missing or incorrect data, we included 706 (13.3%) participants. In total, 142 participants (20.1%) reported an injury during preparation for the event. Univariate analyses (OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.4) and multivariate analyses (OR: 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5) showed that injury history was a significant risk factor for running injuries (Nagelkerke R-square=0.06). Conclusion An injury incidence for recreational runners in preparation for a running event was 20%. A previous injury was the only significant risk factor for runningrelated injuries.

Characteristics and risk factors of sport injuries in physical education students

Neurocognitive and neurophysiological functions related with ACL injury

Context: Only 55% of the athletes return to competitive sports after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Athletes younger than 25 years who return to sports have a second injury rate of 23%. There may be a mismatch between rehabilitation contents and the demands an athlete faces after returning to sports. Current return-to-sports (RTS) tests utilize closed and predictable motor skills; however, demands on the field are different. Neurocognitive functions are essential to manage dynamic sport situations and may fluctuate after peripheral injuries. Most RTS and rehabilitation paradigms appear to lack this aspect, which might be linked to increased risk of second injury.Objective: This systematic and scoping review aims to map existing evidence about neurocognitive and neurophysiological functions in athletes, which could be linked to ACL injury in an integrated fashion and bring an extensive perspective to assessment and rehabilitation approaches.Data Sources: PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant studies published between 2005 and 2020 using the keywords ACL, brain, cortical, neuroplasticity, cognitive, cognition, neurocognition, and athletes.Study Selection: Studies investigating either neurocognitive or neurophysiological functions in athletes and linking these to ACL injury regardless of their design and technique were included.Study Design: Systematic review. Level of Evidence: Level 3.Data Extraction: The demographic, temporal, neurological, and behavioral data revealing possible injury-related aspects were extracted and summarized.Results: A total of 16 studies were included in this review. Deficits in different neurocognitive domains and changes in neurophysiological functions could be a predisposing risk factor for, or a consequence caused by, ACL injuries.Conclusion: Clinicians should view ACL injuries not only as a musculoskeletal but also as a neural lesion with neurocognitive and neurophysiological aspects. Rehabilitation and RTS paradigms should consider these changes for assessment and interventions after injury.

Jump landing characteristics predicts lower extremity injuries in indoor team sports

The aim of this study is to investigate the predictivevalue of landing stability and technique togain insight into risk factors for ankle and kneeinjuries in indoor team sport players. Seventyfivemale and female basketball, volleyball orkorfball players were screened by measuringlanding stability after a single-leg jump landingand landing technique during a repeated countermovement jump by detailed 3-dimensional kinematicsand kinetics. During the season 11 acuteankle injuries were reported along with 6 acuteand 7 overuse knee injuries by the teams’ physicaltherapist. Logistic regression analysis showedless landing stability in the forward and diagonaljump direction (OR 1.01–1.10, p ≤ 0.05) in playerswho sustained an acute ankle injury. Furthermorelanding technique with a greater ankle dorsiflexionmoment increased the risk for acuteankle injury (OR 2.16, p ≤ 0.05). A smaller kneeflexion moment and greater vertical groundreaction force increased the risk of an overuseknee injury (OR 0.29 and 1.13 respectively,p ≤ 0.05). Less one-legged landing stability andsuboptimal landing technique were shown inplayers sustaining an acute ankle and overuseknee injury compared to healthy players. Determiningboth landing stability and technique mayfurther guide injury prevention programs.

Can clinical evaluation predict return to sport after acute hamstring injuries?

BACKGROUND: The current literature on the value of clinical evaluation for predicting time to return to sport (RTS) after acute hamstring injuries has not been systematically summarised.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the prognostic value of clinical findings (patient history and physical examination) for time to RTS after acute hamstring injuries in athletes.DATA SOURCES: The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus and Cochrane Library were searched between October 2014 and August 2015.STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies evaluating patient history and/or physical assessment findings as possible predictors for time to RTS (described in days or weeks) following acute hamstring injuries in athletes were eligible for inclusion.DATA ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the search results and assessed risk of bias using the modified Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for quality appraisal of prognosis studies. We used a best-evidence synthesis to determine the level of evidence.RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, of which one study had a low risk of bias and 15 had a high risk of bias. Moderate evidence for an association with time to RTS was found for three clinical findings (visual analogue scale; pain at time of injury, self-predicted time to RTS and clinician predicted time to RTS). There was limited evidence for an association with time to RTS for seven clinical findings (muscle pain during everyday activities, popping sound at injury, forced to stop within 5 min, visual bruising at the site of injury, width (cm) of tenderness to palpation, pain on trunk flexion and pain on active knee flexion initially after injury). The remaining clinical findings revealed either conflicting evidence or limited evidence for an association with time to RTS.CONCLUSION: There is at present no strong evidence that any clinical finding at baseline provides a valuable prognosis for time to RTS after an acute hamstring injury. There is moderate evidence that visual analogue scale pain at time of injury and predictions for time to RTS by the patient and the clinician are associated with time to RTS. The methodological quality of the current literature is characterised by a substantial risk of bias and reporting of RTS definitions and criteria for RTS were inconsistent. We provide recommendations that can guide the design of future studies.

Understanding youth in sport

Sports are activities enjoyed by many across the globe, regardless of age. The existence and promotion of youth sports has often been based on various assumptions about its value and role in society. Sports participation is assumed to be fun and good and is assumed to contribute to the development of young people. As a result, sports are often seen as an essential part of life for youth. Participation in sports and physical activity is assumed to help young people to develop in a context in which they are able to learn important positive societal values (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005; Holt, 2008). Although there is a widespread belief in the positive dimensions of sports participation for young people, there is a need for research and theory that identifies and critically looks at the processes through which sports participation by youth is experienced and shapes their lives (Coakley, 2011). I return to this critical perspective after I elaborate on the ways sports are viewed as important effective activities for positive youth development.