27.10.2015 Views

Abstracts

BOA-Final-lr

BOA-Final-lr

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

a generalised classification of their presenting injury type or medical condition, and the body part injured. The injury surveillance data was<br />

subsequently analysed to identify occasions of service by sport, the type of injury and the body part injured. A secondary analysis of the PPMG<br />

data was conducted, comparing data collected using the same system at the 2007, 2009 and 2011 Australian University Games (AUG).<br />

Results: Total medical encounters to Sports Trainers ranged from 1715 in 2008 (20.01% of total participants) to 4395 in 2014 (36.21% of total<br />

participants). The most common reason for presentation to a Sports Trainer were soft tissue injuries (average 66.52%). Muscle strains accounted<br />

for 33.02% of all presentations. Injuries to the lower limb accounted for 65.34% of all presentations. 12.36% of the records submitted by Sports<br />

Trainers omitted the “injury type” data point. On average there was a 59% higher rate of attendance to Sports Trainers at the PPMG compared to<br />

the AUG (presentations per participant: PPMG 0.330, AUG 0.208).<br />

Discussion: Older athletes access medical services at the PPMG at a higher rate than at the AUG. High rates of muscle strains is consistent with<br />

other studies comparing injury rates of older athletes with younger participants. Medical encounter data collected by Sports Trainers at the PPMG<br />

provides useful information about the incidence of sports related injuries and medical conditions in older athletes at a multi-sport event, however<br />

more training of Sports Trainers to improve the validity of data collection may be beneficial.<br />

18 Risk factors for hamstring injury: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis<br />

T. Pizzari 1 *<br />

1<br />

La Trobe University<br />

Thursday 22 October<br />

Background: Hamstring muscle strain injuries are a considerable issue in many sports with a high incidence and risk of re-injury, poor healing<br />

responses and prolonged symptoms. Despite the large amount of research that has examined hamstring injury there has been limited improvements<br />

in injury and recurrence rates. Studies aimed at the identification of risk factors are common, but the literature is plagued by inconsistent findings,<br />

analysis of a wide range of single variables, and contains methodology that does meet suggested guidelines for hamstring risk factor research.<br />

This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors associated with hamstring muscle strain injury.<br />

Methods: A search of health databases from inception to September 2014 was undertaken using search terms relating to the hamstring muscle,<br />

athlete, pathology, and risk. Citation tracking and reference scanning were also performed. Prospective studies of sports-related hamstring strains<br />

that assessed some aspect of risk of occurrence or recurrence were included. Random effects meta-analysis was performed where possible to<br />

synthesize the data.<br />

Results: Forty-seven studies were included in the study after deletion of duplicates and application of selection criteria. Meta-analysis showed that<br />

age, previous history of hamstring injury and quadriceps peak torque were associated with hamstring injury, while other isokinetic strength measure,<br />

player anthropometrics and most flexibility measures were not. Qualitative analysis identified some associations with active knee extension,<br />

quadriceps flexibility, previous ACL / knee injury, eccentric strength or endurance of hamstring, and ethnicity. Fatigue was implicated as a risk factor<br />

by proxy measures of injury timing, match characteristics and interchange rates. Some important interactions between risk factor variables were<br />

identified.<br />

Discussion: A plethora of potential risk factors have been examined, many in single studies, making it difficult for the clinician and athlete to<br />

synthesize this large body of literature and translate the findings into practice. Studies of risk factors in this area have been criticised for using a<br />

reductionist model and failing to examine complex interactions between risk factor variables. This review collates the evidence to guide clinical<br />

practice, directs future research and addresses the limitations of the current evidence.<br />

19 Injuries can be Prevented in Contact Flag Football!<br />

Y. Kaplan 1 * • E. Palmanovich 2 • J. Victor 3 • E. Witvrouw 3 • M. Nyska 4 • G. Myklebust 4<br />

1<br />

Lerner Sports Center, Hebrew University of Jerusalem • 2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, Israel • 3 Department of Physical medicine and<br />

Orthopedic surgery, Ghent University, Ghent • 4 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Meir Hospital, Kfar Saba, Israel<br />

Introduction: This original prospective cohort study was conducted in an attempt to significantly reduce the incidence and the severity of injuries in<br />

an intervention cohort as compared to a two-season historical cohort, and to provide recommendations to the International Federation of Football<br />

(IFAF) pertaining to prevention measures to make the game safer.<br />

Methods: 1260 amateur male (mean age: 20.4 ± 3.9yrs) and 244 female (mean age: 18.5 ± 1.7 yrs) players participated in the study. Four<br />

prevention measures were implemented: The no-pocket rule, self-fitting mouth guards, ankle braces (for those players with recurrent ankle sprains)<br />

and an injury treatment information brochure.<br />

All time-loss injuries sustained in game sessions were recorded by the off-the-field medical personnel and followed up by a more detailed phone<br />

injury surveillance questionnaire.<br />

Results: There was an 54% reduction in the total number of injuries, and a significant reduction in the incidence rate and incidence proportion<br />

between the intervention cohort as compared to the historical cohort (P

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!