Mechanisms of Injury Leading to Concussions in Collegiate Soccer Players: A CARE Consortium Study.

Jacob Jo, Adrian J Boltz, K. Williams, Paul F Pasquina, T. McAllister, Michael A. McCrea, S. Broglio, Scott L. Zuckerman, Douglas P Terry, Kristy Arbogast, Holly J Benjamin, A. Brooks, Kenneth L. Cameron, Sara P D Chrisman, J. Clugston, Micky Collins, John Difiori, J. Eckner, C. Estevez, Luis A. Feigenbaum, Joshua T Goldman, A. Hoy, Thomas W. Kaminski, Louise A. Kelly, A. Kontos, Dianne Langford, L. Lintner, Christina L. Master, Jane McDevitt, G. McGinty, Chris Miles, Justus D. Ortega, Nicholas Port, Steve Rowson, Julianne D. Schmidt, A. Susmarski, S. Svoboda
{"title":"Mechanisms of Injury Leading to Concussions in Collegiate Soccer Players: A CARE Consortium Study.","authors":"Jacob Jo, Adrian J Boltz, K. Williams, Paul F Pasquina, T. McAllister, Michael A. McCrea, S. Broglio, Scott L. Zuckerman, Douglas P Terry, Kristy Arbogast, Holly J Benjamin, A. Brooks, Kenneth L. Cameron, Sara P D Chrisman, J. Clugston, Micky Collins, John Difiori, J. Eckner, C. Estevez, Luis A. Feigenbaum, Joshua T Goldman, A. Hoy, Thomas W. Kaminski, Louise A. Kelly, A. Kontos, Dianne Langford, L. Lintner, Christina L. Master, Jane McDevitt, G. McGinty, Chris Miles, Justus D. Ortega, Nicholas Port, Steve Rowson, Julianne D. Schmidt, A. Susmarski, S. Svoboda","doi":"10.1177/03635465241240789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nFew previous studies have investigated how different injury mechanisms leading to sport-related concussion (SRC) in soccer may affect outcomes.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nTo describe injury mechanisms and evaluate injury mechanisms as predictors of symptom severity, return to play (RTP) initiation, and unrestricted RTP (URTP) in a cohort of collegiate soccer players.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium database was used. The mechanism of injury was categorized into head-to-ball, head-to-head, head-to-body, and head-to-ground/equipment. Baseline/acute injury characteristics-including Sports Concussion Assessment Tool-3 total symptom severity (TSS), loss of consciousness (LOC), and altered mental status (AMS); descriptive data; and recovery (RTP and URTP)-were compared. Multivariable regression and Weibull models were used to assess the predictive value of the mechanism of injury on TSS and RTP/URTP, respectively.\n\n\nRESULTS\nAmong 391 soccer SRCs, 32.7% were attributed to a head-to-ball mechanism, 27.9% to a head-to-body mechanism, 21.7% to a head-to-head mechanism, and 17.6% to a head-to-ground/equipment mechanism. Event type was significantly associated with injury mechanism [χ2(3) = 63; P < .001), such that more head-to-ball concussions occurred in practice sessions (n = 92 [51.1%] vs n = 36 [17.1%]) and more head-to-head (n = 65 [30.8%] vs n = 20 [11.1]) and head-to-body (n = 76 [36%] vs n = 33 [18.3%]) concussions occurred in competition. The primary position was significantly associated with injury mechanism [χ2(3) = 24; P < .004], with goalkeepers having no SRCs from the head-to-head mechanism (n = 0 [0%]) and forward players having the least head-to-body mechanism (n = 15 [19.2%]). LOC was also associated with injury mechanism (P = .034), with LOC being most prevalent in head-to-ground/equipment. Finally, AMS was most prevalent in head-to-ball (n = 54 [34.2%]) and head-to-body (n = 48 [30.4%]) mechanisms [χ2(3) = 9; P = .029]. In our multivariable models, the mechanism was not a predictor of TSS or RTP; however, it was associated with URTP (P = .044), with head-to-equipment/ground injuries resulting in the shortest mean number of days (14 ± 9.1 days) to URTP and the head-to-ball mechanism the longest (18.6 ± 21.6 days).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe mechanism of injury differed by event type and primary position, and LOC and AMS were different across mechanisms. Even though the mechanism of injury was not a significant predictor of acute symptom burden or time until RTP initiation, those with head-to-equipment/ground injuries spent the shortest time until URTP, and those with head-to-ball injuries had the longest time until URTP.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"57 18","pages":"3635465241240789"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241240789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Few previous studies have investigated how different injury mechanisms leading to sport-related concussion (SRC) in soccer may affect outcomes. PURPOSE To describe injury mechanisms and evaluate injury mechanisms as predictors of symptom severity, return to play (RTP) initiation, and unrestricted RTP (URTP) in a cohort of collegiate soccer players. STUDY DESIGN Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS The Concussion Assessment, Research and Education (CARE) Consortium database was used. The mechanism of injury was categorized into head-to-ball, head-to-head, head-to-body, and head-to-ground/equipment. Baseline/acute injury characteristics-including Sports Concussion Assessment Tool-3 total symptom severity (TSS), loss of consciousness (LOC), and altered mental status (AMS); descriptive data; and recovery (RTP and URTP)-were compared. Multivariable regression and Weibull models were used to assess the predictive value of the mechanism of injury on TSS and RTP/URTP, respectively. RESULTS Among 391 soccer SRCs, 32.7% were attributed to a head-to-ball mechanism, 27.9% to a head-to-body mechanism, 21.7% to a head-to-head mechanism, and 17.6% to a head-to-ground/equipment mechanism. Event type was significantly associated with injury mechanism [χ2(3) = 63; P < .001), such that more head-to-ball concussions occurred in practice sessions (n = 92 [51.1%] vs n = 36 [17.1%]) and more head-to-head (n = 65 [30.8%] vs n = 20 [11.1]) and head-to-body (n = 76 [36%] vs n = 33 [18.3%]) concussions occurred in competition. The primary position was significantly associated with injury mechanism [χ2(3) = 24; P < .004], with goalkeepers having no SRCs from the head-to-head mechanism (n = 0 [0%]) and forward players having the least head-to-body mechanism (n = 15 [19.2%]). LOC was also associated with injury mechanism (P = .034), with LOC being most prevalent in head-to-ground/equipment. Finally, AMS was most prevalent in head-to-ball (n = 54 [34.2%]) and head-to-body (n = 48 [30.4%]) mechanisms [χ2(3) = 9; P = .029]. In our multivariable models, the mechanism was not a predictor of TSS or RTP; however, it was associated with URTP (P = .044), with head-to-equipment/ground injuries resulting in the shortest mean number of days (14 ± 9.1 days) to URTP and the head-to-ball mechanism the longest (18.6 ± 21.6 days). CONCLUSION The mechanism of injury differed by event type and primary position, and LOC and AMS were different across mechanisms. Even though the mechanism of injury was not a significant predictor of acute symptom burden or time until RTP initiation, those with head-to-equipment/ground injuries spent the shortest time until URTP, and those with head-to-ball injuries had the longest time until URTP.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
导致大学生足球运动员脑震荡的损伤机制:CARE 联合研究
研究设计队列研究;证据等级,2。方法使用脑震荡评估、研究和教育(CARE)联盟数据库。受伤机制分为头部撞球、头部撞头部、头部撞身体和头部撞地面/设备。比较了基线/急性损伤特征,包括运动脑震荡评估工具-3 总症状严重程度(TSS)、意识丧失(LOC)和精神状态改变(AMS);描述性数据;以及恢复情况(RTP 和 URTP)。结果在 391 例足球 SRC 中,32.7% 属于头部撞球机制,27.9% 属于头部撞击身体机制,21.7% 属于头部撞击头部机制,17.6% 属于头部撞击地面/设备机制。活动类型与受伤机制有明显的相关性[χ2(3) = 63; P < .001],因此更多的头对球脑震荡发生在训练课上(n = 92 [51.1%] vs n = 36 [17.1%]),而更多的头对头(n = 65 [30.8%] vs n = 20 [11.1])和头对体(n = 76 [36%] vs n = 33 [18.3%])脑震荡发生在比赛中。主力位置与受伤机制明显相关[χ2(3) = 24; P < .004],守门员没有头对头机制的脑震荡(n = 0 [0%]),而前锋球员头对身体机制的脑震荡最少(n = 15 [19.2%])。LOC也与受伤机制有关(P = .034),LOC在头对地/设备受伤中最为普遍。最后,AMS 在头对球(54 [34.2%])和头对体(48 [30.4%])机制中最为常见 [χ2(3) = 9; P = .029]。在我们的多变量模型中,受伤机制不是 TSS 或 RTP 的预测因素;但是,受伤机制与 URTP 相关(P = .044),头对设备/地面受伤导致 URTP 的平均天数最短(14 ± 9.1 天),而头对球受伤机制导致 URTP 的平均天数最长(18.6 ± 21.6 天)。尽管受伤机制对急性症状负担或启动 RTP 所需的时间没有显著的预测作用,但头部对设备/地面受伤的患者直到 URTP 所需的时间最短,而头部对球受伤的患者直到 URTP 所需的时间最长。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Thank You, Reviewers! Strengthening the Evidence: Addressing Biases in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Studies: Response Strengthening the Evidence: Addressing Biases in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Studies: Letter to the Editor In Gratitude Presidential Address of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1