Suppr超能文献

导致大学生足球运动员脑震荡的损伤机制:CARE 联盟研究。

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

机构信息

Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt Sports Concussion Center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

Investigation performed at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2024 May;52(6):1585-1595. doi: 10.1177/03635465241240789. Epub 2024 Apr 24.

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 [χ(3) = 63; < .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 [χ(3) = 24; < .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 ( = .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 [χ(3) = 9; = .029]. In our multivariable models, the mechanism was not a predictor of TSS or RTP; however, it was associated with URTP ( = .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.

摘要

背景

之前很少有研究调查导致足球运动相关脑震荡(SRC)的不同损伤机制如何影响结果。

目的

描述损伤机制,并评估损伤机制作为一个队列中大学生足球运动员症状严重程度、恢复比赛(RTP)起始和无限制 RTP(URTP)的预测因子。

研究设计

队列研究;证据水平,2 级。

方法

使用 Concussion Assessment、Research and Education(CARE)Consortium 数据库。损伤机制分为头部与球、头部与头部、头部与身体和头部与地面/设备。比较基线/急性损伤特征-包括 Sports Concussion Assessment Tool-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(RTP 和 URTP)。多变量回归和威布尔模型分别用于评估损伤机制对 TSS 和 RTP/URTP 的预测价值。

结果

在 391 例足球 SRC 中,32.7%归因于头部与球机制,27.9%归因于头部与身体机制,21.7%归因于头部与头部机制,17.6%归因于头部与地面/设备机制。事件类型与损伤机制显著相关[χ²(3) = 63;<.001],例如,更多的头部与球脑震荡发生在练习赛中(n = 92 [51.1%]),更多的头部与头部(n = 65 [30.8%])和头部与身体(n = 76 [36%])脑震荡发生在比赛中。主要位置与损伤机制显著相关[χ²(3) = 24;<.004],守门员没有头部与头部机制的 SRC(n = 0 [0%]),而前锋的头部与身体机制最少(n = 15 [19.2%])。LOC 也与损伤机制相关(=.034),LOC 在头部与地面/设备中最为常见。最后,AMS 最常见于头部与球(n = 54 [34.2%])和头部与身体(n = 48 [30.4%])机制[χ²(3) = 9;=.029]。在我们的多变量模型中,机制不是 TSS 或 RTP 的预测因子;然而,它与 URTP 相关(=.044),头部与设备/地面损伤导致最短的平均 URTP 天数(14 ± 9.1 天),头部与球机制最长(18.6 ± 21.6 天)。

结论

损伤机制因事件类型和主要位置而异,LOC 和 AMS 在不同机制中也不同。尽管损伤机制不是急性症状负担或 RTP 起始时间的显著预测因子,但头部与设备/地面损伤者达到 URTP 的时间最短,头部与球损伤者达到 URTP 的时间最长。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3eb0/11823273/32d5bb540556/10.1177_03635465241240789-fig1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验