Descriptive Epidemiology of Injuries Sustained in National Collegiate Athletic Association Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse, 2004–2005 Through 2013–2014 Seasons

Ambar Garcia, Lauren H. Redler
{"title":"Descriptive Epidemiology of Injuries Sustained in National Collegiate Athletic Association Men’s and Women’s Lacrosse, 2004–2005 Through 2013–2014 Seasons","authors":"Ambar Garcia, Lauren H. Redler","doi":"10.1177/15563316221147204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Men’s and women’s lacrosse operate with significantly different rules, equipment, and contact. Previous studies have assessed injury rates (IRs) in either men’s or women’s lacrosse, but a few studies have compared injury patterns in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s and women’s lacrosse. Purpose: We sought to examine whether there were differences in injury type, mechanism, setting, and time loss in men and women playing lacrosse in the NCAA. Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study using data collected by the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) during a 10-season period (2004–2005 to 2013–2014). The data were assessed for potential differences in injuries between male and female lacrosse players and analyzed to obtain descriptive statistics through calculations of rates, percentages, and confidence intervals (CIs). Main outcomes measured were IRs per 1000 athletic exposures (AEs) and injury rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The IRs were 5.19 per 1000 AEs in women’s lacrosse and 6.52 per 1000 AEs in men’s lacrosse. Men had more injuries overall than women in competitions and practices and in preseason, regular season, and postseason play. Preseason IRs were higher than the regular season, and competition injuries were greater than practice injuries in both sexes. Women had more injuries to the head/face, knee, lower leg, and foot. Sprains, strains, concussions, and contusions were the most common types of injuries in both sexes. Overuse/gradual onset, cartilage, concussion, inflammation, and tendinosis injuries were more common in women than men. Injuries in men resulted in time loss more often than injuries in women. Conclusions: Our retrospective study’s findings suggest that there were differences in injury patterns between men’s and women’s lacrosse. Future prospective research should assess whether these disparities are due to differences in equipment and rules and whether changes to these factors can reduce injuries.","PeriodicalId":253125,"journal":{"name":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HSS Journal®: The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15563316221147204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Men’s and women’s lacrosse operate with significantly different rules, equipment, and contact. Previous studies have assessed injury rates (IRs) in either men’s or women’s lacrosse, but a few studies have compared injury patterns in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) men’s and women’s lacrosse. Purpose: We sought to examine whether there were differences in injury type, mechanism, setting, and time loss in men and women playing lacrosse in the NCAA. Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study using data collected by the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (ISP) during a 10-season period (2004–2005 to 2013–2014). The data were assessed for potential differences in injuries between male and female lacrosse players and analyzed to obtain descriptive statistics through calculations of rates, percentages, and confidence intervals (CIs). Main outcomes measured were IRs per 1000 athletic exposures (AEs) and injury rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% CIs. Results: The IRs were 5.19 per 1000 AEs in women’s lacrosse and 6.52 per 1000 AEs in men’s lacrosse. Men had more injuries overall than women in competitions and practices and in preseason, regular season, and postseason play. Preseason IRs were higher than the regular season, and competition injuries were greater than practice injuries in both sexes. Women had more injuries to the head/face, knee, lower leg, and foot. Sprains, strains, concussions, and contusions were the most common types of injuries in both sexes. Overuse/gradual onset, cartilage, concussion, inflammation, and tendinosis injuries were more common in women than men. Injuries in men resulted in time loss more often than injuries in women. Conclusions: Our retrospective study’s findings suggest that there were differences in injury patterns between men’s and women’s lacrosse. Future prospective research should assess whether these disparities are due to differences in equipment and rules and whether changes to these factors can reduce injuries.
2004-2005至2013-2014赛季,全国大学体育协会男子和女子长曲棍球受伤的描述性流行病学研究
背景:男子和女子曲棍球在规则、设备和接触上有明显不同。以前的研究已经评估了男子或女子长曲棍球的受伤率(ir),但少数研究比较了全国大学体育协会(NCAA)男子和女子长曲棍球的受伤模式。目的:我们试图研究在NCAA中,男女长曲棍球运动员在损伤类型、机制、环境和时间损失方面是否存在差异。方法:采用NCAA损伤监测项目(ISP)收集的10个赛季(2004-2005年至2013-2014年)数据进行回顾性病例对照研究。这些数据被评估为男性和女性长曲棍球运动员之间受伤的潜在差异,并通过计算比率、百分比和置信区间(ci)来分析获得描述性统计数据。测量的主要结果是每1000次运动暴露的ir (ae)和95% ci的损伤率比(IRRs)。结果:女子曲棍球运动员的ir为5.19 / 1000 ae,男子曲棍球运动员的ir为6.52 / 1000 ae。在比赛、训练、季前赛、常规赛和季后赛中,男性总体上比女性受伤更多。季前赛的ir高于常规赛,比赛损伤大于训练损伤。女性在头部/面部、膝盖、小腿和足部受伤较多。扭伤、拉伤、脑震荡和挫伤是男女中最常见的伤害类型。过度使用/逐渐发作、软骨、脑震荡、炎症和肌腱损伤在女性中比男性更常见。男性受伤比女性受伤更容易导致时间损失。结论:我们的回顾性研究结果表明,在男子和女子曲棍球之间的损伤模式存在差异。未来的前瞻性研究应该评估这些差异是否由于设备和规则的差异,以及这些因素的改变是否可以减少伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信