Physiotherapy Nucleus Orthopedic Trauma of Health and Sports Science of the Santa Catarina State (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil.
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Apr 12;18(1):296. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-03781-x.
The combination of resistance training (RT) and aerobic training is believed to achieve the best effects. Several different aerobic training methods have emerged in combination with or as a substitute for traditional RT. This study wished to verify which RT is safest in terms of injury prevalence and incidence. Also, it ascertained the characteristics of the injured subjects, the level of severity of the injuries and what definitions of injuries the available studies use.
This systematic review followed the PRISMA recommendations and was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42021257010. The searches were performed in the PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science, electronic databases using the Medical Subject Headings terms "Resistance training" or "Strength training" or "Crossfit" or "Weightlifting" or "Powerlifting" combined (AND) with "Injury" or "Injuries" or "Sprain" AND "Incidence" or "Prevalence" AND "Epidemiology" or "Epidemiological" in the title or abstract. The last search was performed on March 2023. To be included in the review, the studies had to be available as full text, be clinical trials focusing on epidemiological injuries of resistance training. There was no time limit for the selection of articles. To assess the quality of the studies, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) was used.
The initial literature search resulted in 4982 studies. After reading the titles, abstracts and full text, 28 articles were selected for data extraction. Seventeen investigated the injuries in HIFT/CrossFit, three in powerlifting, three in strength training, three in weightlifting and one in strongman. In addition, one study examined the HIFT/CrossFit and weightlifting. The incidence of injuries presented in the studies ranged from 0.21/1000 h to 18.9/1000 h and the prevalence of injuries was 10% to 82%. In the quality assessment for STROBE, five studies were classified at level A, 21 at level B and two at level C.
This systematic review showed that traditional strength training is the safest RT method, and strongman is the least safe regarding injuries. Few studies have been rated highly according to STROBE. Furthermore, few studies have been published on some RT methods. These two factors make it difficult to generalize the results.
人们普遍认为,将阻力训练(RT)与有氧运动相结合能达到最佳效果。几种不同的有氧运动方法已经出现,并与传统 RT 相结合或作为其替代方法。本研究旨在验证哪种 RT 在受伤发生率和流行率方面最安全。此外,还确定了受伤受试者的特征、受伤程度以及现有研究使用的受伤定义。
本系统评价遵循 PRISMA 建议,并在 PROSPERO 中以 CRD42021257010 编号进行注册。在 PubMed、Cochrane 和 Web of Science 电子数据库中,使用“Resistance training”或“Strength training”或“Crossfit”或“Weightlifting”或“Powerlifting”的 Medical Subject Headings 术语,并结合“ Injury”或“Injuries”或“Sprain”,进行了标题或摘要中的“Incidence”或“Prevalence”和“Epidemiology”或“Epidemiological”的组合搜索。最后一次搜索于 2023 年 3 月进行。要纳入本综述,研究必须提供全文,并为针对 RT 流行病学损伤的临床试验。对文章的选择没有时间限制。为了评估研究的质量,使用了 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology(STROBE)。
最初的文献搜索产生了 4982 项研究。在阅读标题、摘要和全文后,选择了 28 篇文章进行数据提取。其中 17 项研究调查了高强度间歇训练/交叉训练(HIFT/CrossFit)中的损伤,3 项研究调查了力量举重中的损伤,3 项研究调查了力量训练中的损伤,3 项研究调查了举重中的损伤,1 项研究调查了 HIFT/CrossFit 和举重中的损伤。此外,研究中报告的损伤发生率范围为 0.21/1000 h 至 18.9/1000 h,损伤流行率为 10%至 82%。在 STROBE 的质量评估中,5 项研究被评为 A 级,21 项研究被评为 B 级,2 项研究被评为 C 级。
本系统评价表明,传统力量训练是最安全的 RT 方法,而大力士运动是受伤风险最高的 RT 方法。根据 STROBE,很少有研究被评为高度可靠。此外,关于某些 RT 方法的研究很少。这两个因素使得很难对结果进行概括。