A - 51 Examining the Role of Cognition in Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injury and Concussion Risk in Elite Athletes

IF 2.1 4区心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-07-06 DOI:10.1093/arclin/acae052.51

I. J. Sewell, T. Romeas, J. Deslauriers, S. Leclerc, M. Wojtowicz

{"title":"A - 51 Examining the Role of Cognition in Lower Extremity Musculoskeletal Injury and Concussion Risk in Elite Athletes","authors":"I. J. Sewell, T. Romeas, J. Deslauriers, S. Leclerc, M. Wojtowicz","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae052.51","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n Recent evidence suggests a relationship between cognitive performance and the risk of lower extremity musculoskeletal (LEMSK) injury, and that concussion may also increase the risk of subsequent LEMSK injury, though these relationships have been largely examined in isolation. This study examined associations between pre-season cognitive performance and the risk of subsequent LEMSK injury and concussion among elite athletes.\n \n \n \n An observational study of elite/international-level athletes from a Canadian national sport institute. 146 athletes (female = 87) across six different sports completed pre-season cognitive testing (Vienna Test System) between 2018 and 2023. Subsequent LEMSK injuries and concussions during the year following pre-season cognitive testing were documented via an injury surveillance program.\n \n \n \n Pre-season cognitive performance was similar in athletes with (n = 24) and without (n = 122) a subsequent concussion, and those with (n = 100) and without (n = 46) a subsequent LEMSK (ps > 0.05). Athletes with both a subsequent LEMSK and concussion had slower baseline reaction time on a task of stress reactivity (n = 16; median RT = 0.74 s) compared to athletes with only a subsequent LEMSK (n = 84; median RT = 0.69 s; V = 900.5, p = 0.019). Concussion history was a significant predictor of both subsequent LEMSK (B = 0.94, p = 0.017) and the number of subsequent LEMSK (B = 1.23, p < 0.01). Faster RTs on inhibition tests were predictors of subsequent number of LEMSK, while controlling for concussion history (B = -10.21, p = 0.045; B = -10.60, p = 0.017).\n \n \n \n Identifying risk factors for LEMSK injuries and concussions is critical for preventing future injuries. These preliminary results suggest a relationship between baseline reaction time performance and combined subsequent LEMSK and concussion injury.\n","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae052.51","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recent evidence suggests a relationship between cognitive performance and the risk of lower extremity musculoskeletal (LEMSK) injury, and that concussion may also increase the risk of subsequent LEMSK injury, though these relationships have been largely examined in isolation. This study examined associations between pre-season cognitive performance and the risk of subsequent LEMSK injury and concussion among elite athletes. An observational study of elite/international-level athletes from a Canadian national sport institute. 146 athletes (female = 87) across six different sports completed pre-season cognitive testing (Vienna Test System) between 2018 and 2023. Subsequent LEMSK injuries and concussions during the year following pre-season cognitive testing were documented via an injury surveillance program. Pre-season cognitive performance was similar in athletes with (n = 24) and without (n = 122) a subsequent concussion, and those with (n = 100) and without (n = 46) a subsequent LEMSK (ps > 0.05). Athletes with both a subsequent LEMSK and concussion had slower baseline reaction time on a task of stress reactivity (n = 16; median RT = 0.74 s) compared to athletes with only a subsequent LEMSK (n = 84; median RT = 0.69 s; V = 900.5, p = 0.019). Concussion history was a significant predictor of both subsequent LEMSK (B = 0.94, p = 0.017) and the number of subsequent LEMSK (B = 1.23, p < 0.01). Faster RTs on inhibition tests were predictors of subsequent number of LEMSK, while controlling for concussion history (B = -10.21, p = 0.045; B = -10.60, p = 0.017). Identifying risk factors for LEMSK injuries and concussions is critical for preventing future injuries. These preliminary results suggest a relationship between baseline reaction time performance and combined subsequent LEMSK and concussion injury.

查看原文本刊更多论文

A - 51 研究认知在精英运动员下肢肌肉骨骼损伤和脑震荡风险中的作用

最近的证据表明，认知能力与下肢肌肉骨骼损伤（LEMSK）风险之间存在关系，脑震荡也可能增加随后的下肢肌肉骨骼损伤风险，尽管这些关系在很大程度上是孤立研究的。本研究考察了精英运动员在赛季前的认知表现与随后的 LEMSK 损伤和脑震荡风险之间的关系。这是一项针对加拿大国家体育学院精英/国际级运动员的观察性研究。在 2018 年至 2023 年期间，来自六个不同运动项目的 146 名运动员（女性 = 87 人）完成了季前认知测试（维也纳测试系统）。在季前认知测试后的一年中，通过损伤监测计划记录了随后的 LEMSK 损伤和脑震荡。有（n = 24）和没有（n = 122）后续脑震荡的运动员，以及有（n = 100）和没有（n = 46）后续 LEMSK 的运动员的季前认知表现相似（PS > 0.05）。在压力反应性任务中，既有后续 LEMSK 又有脑震荡的运动员（n = 16；RT 中位数 = 0.74 秒）与仅有后续 LEMSK 的运动员（n = 84；RT 中位数 = 0.69 秒；V = 900.5，p = 0.019）相比，基线反应时间较慢。脑震荡史对随后的LEMSK（B = 0.94，p = 0.017）和随后的LEMSK次数（B = 1.23，p < 0.01）都有明显的预测作用。在控制脑震荡病史的情况下，抑制测试中更快的RT是随后LEMSK次数的预测因素（B = -10.21，p = 0.045；B = -10.60，p = 0.017）。识别 LEMSK 损伤和脑震荡的风险因素对于预防未来的损伤至关重要。这些初步结果表明，基线反应时间表现与随后的 LEMSK 损伤和脑震荡综合损伤之间存在关系。

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

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology 医学-心理学

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

7.70%

发文量

358

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.