Suppr超能文献

两种不同的阿尔卑斯式攀岩风格的风险特征。

Risk profiles in two different alpine rock climbing styles.

机构信息

Medical University of Innsbruck: Medizinische Universitat Innsbruck, Innsbruck, AUSTRIA.

Orthopädie und Traumatologie, Medical University of Innsbruck: Medizinische Universitat Innsbruck, Innsbruck, AUSTRIA.

出版信息

Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2022 Aug;36(3):145-154. doi: 10.1055/a-1833-8840. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

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.

摘要

简介

本研究旨在评估两种不同风格的攀岩(有少量路线保护的阿尔卑斯式攀登(AC)和路线保护良好的阿尔卑斯运动攀登(SC))的受伤风险特征,以便为风险管理制定预防策略。

患者和方法

回顾性评估了 18 例 SC 和 12 例 AC 攀岩事故,重点关注攀岩者的人口统计学特征(年龄、经验、训练强度、表现水平)、事故人口统计学特征(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、路线等级、天气)。

结果

受伤主要发生在上升过程中的男性领先攀岩者(80%)。下肢受伤占 46%,上肢受伤占 40%,骨盆受伤占 6%,头部、胸部和脊柱受伤占 3%。AC 中,攀爬者的年龄明显更大(43 岁 vs. 31 岁;p=0.03),经验更丰富(21.5 年 vs. 5.7 年的攀爬经验)。AC 中坠落高度明显更高(14.8 米 vs. 4.7 米)。受伤前的意外事件在两组之间存在显著差异。SC 中,78%的坠落是由于滑倒和放手,而在 AC 中仅发生岩石松动。SC 中的攀爬者倾向于接近或超过他们的表现水平,而 AC 中的攀爬者倾向于表现出更多的多重伤害。SC 中的攀爬者倾向于出现更多的踝关节骨折,而 AC 中的攀爬者则倾向于出现更多的多处受伤病例。

讨论

AC 和 SC 攀岩者的风险特征不同。AC 中较差的路线保护导致更严重的伤害。然而,在 SC 路线中,良好的保护本身并不能避免严重的伤害。为了预防,攀岩者应该意识到 AC 和 SC 路线的特定风险,并相应地调整他们的行为。SC 中的运动技能被高估,而 AC 中的高山需求被低估。更注重视觉和触觉握力控制可能有助于防止抓握失误。小心地将绳索排入坚固的岩石中可以减少对保护者的落石。在绳索处理和保护时必须保持持续的注意力。建议在 AC 中使用更灵活的保护垫,因为它们可能会缩短坠落高度。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验