Krill Michael K, Borchers James R, Hoffman Joshua T, Tatarski Rachel L, Hewett Timothy E
a Sports Medicine Research Institute , The Ohio State University , Columbus , OH , USA.
b Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine , Florida Atlantic University , Boca Raton , FL , USA.
Phys Sportsmed. 2017 Feb;45(1):26-30. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2017.1279520. Epub 2017 Jan 19.
Football players compete with a high risk of injury due to the sport. With the recent efforts to improve safety, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) established new terminology to clearly define exposure types and reduce the number of high contact exposures.
To compare football injury rates (IR) with a focus on game versus practice, time in season of injury, mechanism of injury and utilizing recent exposure types defined by the NCAA (live contact, full-pads and non-contact).
Licensed medical professionals monitored a college football program regular season from 2012-2015. Each injury was classified by timing of the injury, mechanism of injury, and whether it occurred in game or practice. Player attendance and type of exposure (non-contact, full-pad or live contact, which involves live tackling to the ground and/or full-speed blocking and can occur in full-pad or half-pad ('shell') equipment) was documented. IR were calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AE). Mid-exact P tests compared rates between variables.
The game IR was over three times as high as the practice IR (p < .001). Live contact exposures had the greatest IR of 5.702/1000 AE and were seven times more likely to produce an injury compared to non-contact exposures (p < .001); whereas, live contact exposures were about two times more likely to produce an injury compared to full-pad exposures (p = .004). The majority of injuries observed occurred from a contact mechanism (IR: 2.508/1000 AE). The highest IR during the fall football season occurred in the pre-season at 5.769/1000 AE.
Overall IR observed in this cohort were lower than prior studies published before recent NCAA rule changes and guideline implementation to improve athlete safety. Athletes in this cohort were at significantly increased risk of injury from live contact exposures.
由于足球运动的性质，足球运动员面临着较高的受伤风险。随着近期为提高安全性所做的努力，美国国家大学体育协会（NCAA）制定了新的术语，以明确界定暴露类型并减少高接触暴露的次数。
比较足球受伤率（IR），重点关注比赛与训练、受伤的赛季时间、受伤机制，并采用NCAA定义的近期暴露类型（实况接触、全装备和非接触）。
有执照的医学专业人员对2012 - 2015年一个大学足球项目的常规赛进行监测。每次受伤按受伤时间、受伤机制以及是在比赛还是训练中发生进行分类。记录球员出勤情况和暴露类型（非接触、全装备或实况接触，实况接触包括将对手摔倒在地和/或全速阻挡，可在全装备或半装备（“外壳”）装备情况下发生）。每1000名运动员暴露（AE）计算受伤率。采用精确中位数P检验比较变量之间的比率。
比赛受伤率是训练受伤率的三倍多（p < 0.001）。实况接触暴露的受伤率最高，为5.702/1000 AE，与非接触暴露相比，受伤可能性高七倍（p < 0.001）；而与全装备暴露相比，实况接触暴露导致受伤的可能性约高两倍（p = 0.004）。观察到的大多数受伤是由接触机制导致的（受伤率：2.508/1000 AE）。秋季足球赛季中受伤率最高的是季前赛，为5.769/1000 AE。
在这一队列中观察到的总体受伤率低于NCAA近期为提高运动员安全性而进行规则更改和实施指导方针之前发表的先前研究。这一队列中的运动员因实况接触暴露而受伤的风险显著增加。
