Risk profiles in two different alpine rock climbing styles.

Markus Gabl, Peter Kaiser, Stefan Benedikt, Gernot Schmidle, Matthias Haselbacher, Rohit Arora
{"title":"Risk profiles in two different alpine rock climbing styles.","authors":"Markus Gabl,&nbsp;Peter Kaiser,&nbsp;Stefan Benedikt,&nbsp;Gernot Schmidle,&nbsp;Matthias Haselbacher,&nbsp;Rohit Arora","doi":"10.1055/a-1833-8840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The aim of this study is to evaluate the injury risk profile of the two different styles of rock climbing, alpine climbing with minor route protection (AC) and alpine sport climbing on well-protected routes (SC), in order to develop preventive strategies for risk management.  PATIENTS AND METHODS : 18 SC and 12 AC rock climbing accidents were evaluated retrospectively with a focus on climbers` demographics (age, experience, training intensity, performance level), accident demographics (unforeseen events preceding the injury, ascending or descending, fall height), injury patterns (injury severity, pathologies, pathomechanism) and environmental conditions (rock characteristics, route frequency, route grade, weather).  RESULTS : Injuries were mainly sustained by male lead climbers during ascent (80%). The lower extremity was injured in 46%, the upper extremity in 40%, the pelvis in 6% and the head, chest and spine in 3%. Climbers were significantly older (43 vs. 31 years; p=0.03) and more experienced (21.5 vs. 5.7 climbing years) in AC. Falling height was significantly greater in AC (14.8 vs. 4.7m). Unforeseen events preceding the injury differed significantly between both groups. Slipping off and letting go preceded the fall in 78% in SC, while rock dislodging occurred only in AC. There was a tendency that climbers in SC climbed near or above their performance level, while climbers in AC climbed below their level. SC climbers tended to show more ankle fractures while AC climbers tended to present more cases with multiple injuries.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>AC and SC climbers differ in their risk profiles. Poorer route protection in AC resulted in more severe injuries. Yet in SC routes, good protection alone was not enough to avoid severe injuries. For prevention, climbers should be aware of the specific risks in AC and SC routes and should adjust their behaviour accordingly. Athletic skills were overestimated in SC, while alpine demands were underestimated in AC. A higher focus on visual and haptic grip control may help to prevent loss of hold. A careful lining of the rope into solid rock can reduce rockfalls for the seconder. Continuous attention is mandatory in rope handling and belaying. Applying more mobile pros is recommended in AC because they may shorten fall heights.</p>","PeriodicalId":520779,"journal":{"name":"Sportverletzung Sportschaden : Organ der Gesellschaft fur Orthopadisch-Traumatologische Sportmedizin","volume":" ","pages":"145-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sportverletzung Sportschaden : Organ der Gesellschaft fur Orthopadisch-Traumatologische Sportmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1833-8840","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the injury risk profile of the two different styles of rock climbing, alpine climbing with minor route protection (AC) and alpine sport climbing on well-protected routes (SC), in order to develop preventive strategies for risk management.  PATIENTS AND METHODS : 18 SC and 12 AC rock climbing accidents were evaluated retrospectively with a focus on climbers` demographics (age, experience, training intensity, performance level), accident demographics (unforeseen events preceding the injury, ascending or descending, fall height), injury patterns (injury severity, pathologies, pathomechanism) and environmental conditions (rock characteristics, route frequency, route grade, weather).  RESULTS : Injuries were mainly sustained by male lead climbers during ascent (80%). The lower extremity was injured in 46%, the upper extremity in 40%, the pelvis in 6% and the head, chest and spine in 3%. Climbers were significantly older (43 vs. 31 years; p=0.03) and more experienced (21.5 vs. 5.7 climbing years) in AC. Falling height was significantly greater in AC (14.8 vs. 4.7m). Unforeseen events preceding the injury differed significantly between both groups. Slipping off and letting go preceded the fall in 78% in SC, while rock dislodging occurred only in AC. There was a tendency that climbers in SC climbed near or above their performance level, while climbers in AC climbed below their level. SC climbers tended to show more ankle fractures while AC climbers tended to present more cases with multiple injuries.

Discussion: AC and SC climbers differ in their risk profiles. Poorer route protection in AC resulted in more severe injuries. Yet in SC routes, good protection alone was not enough to avoid severe injuries. For prevention, climbers should be aware of the specific risks in AC and SC routes and should adjust their behaviour accordingly. Athletic skills were overestimated in SC, while alpine demands were underestimated in AC. A higher focus on visual and haptic grip control may help to prevent loss of hold. A careful lining of the rope into solid rock can reduce rockfalls for the seconder. Continuous attention is mandatory in rope handling and belaying. Applying more mobile pros is recommended in AC because they may shorten fall heights.

两种不同高山攀岩风格的风险概况。
前言:本研究的目的是评估两种不同类型攀岩的伤害风险特征,即有少量路线保护的高山攀岩(AC)和有良好保护路线的高山运动攀岩(SC),以制定风险管理的预防策略。患者和方法:回顾性评估了18例SC和12例AC攀岩事故,重点是攀岩者的人口统计(年龄、经验、训练强度、表现水平)、事故人口统计(受伤前的意外事件、上升或下降、坠落高度)、损伤模式(损伤严重程度、病理、病理机制)和环境条件(岩石特征、路线频率、路线坡度、天气)。结果:登山过程中受伤的主要是男性领队(80%)。下肢受伤的占46%,上肢受伤的占40%,骨盆受伤的占6%,头部、胸部和脊柱受伤的占3%。攀登者明显更老(43岁vs. 31岁;p=0.03), AC的经验更丰富(21.5年对5.7年)。AC的下落高度显著高于AC(14.8米对4.7米)。两组患者受伤前的意外事件差异显著。78%的攀爬者在攀爬过程中先滑后放,只有在攀爬过程中才会发生岩石移位。攀爬过程中,攀爬过程接近或高于攀爬水平,而攀爬过程低于攀爬水平。SC型攀爬者多出现踝关节骨折,AC型攀爬者多出现多发伤。讨论:AC攀登者和SC攀登者的风险特征不同。交流中较差的路线保护导致了更严重的伤害。然而,在SC路线上,仅靠良好的保护还不足以避免严重的伤害。为了预防,攀登者应该意识到AC和SC路线的具体风险,并相应地调整自己的行为。运动技能在SC中被高估,而高山需求在AC中被低估。高度关注视觉和触觉握力控制可能有助于防止失去握力。小心地把绳子套在坚硬的岩石里,可以减少第二次落石。持续的注意在绳子的操作和保护是强制性的。建议在AC中使用更多的移动设备,因为它们可以缩短坠落高度。
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