4.3 Article

Achilles Tendon Rupture: Risk Assessment for Aerial and Ground Athletes

Journal

SPORTS HEALTH-A MULTIDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
Volume 5, Issue 5, Pages 407-409

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1941738112472165

Keywords

Achilles; risk; injury; rupture

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: Achilles tendon (AT) rupture in athletes is increasing in incidence and accounts for one of the most devastating sports injuries because of the threat to alter or end a career. Despite the magnitude of this injury, reliable risk assessment has not been clearly defined, and prevention strategies have been limited. The purpose of this review is to identify potential intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for AT rupture in aerial and ground athletes stated in the current literature. Evidence Acquisition: A MEDLINE search was conducted on AT rupture, or injury and risk factors and athletes from 1980 to 2011. Emphasis was placed on epidemiology, etiology, and review articles focusing on the risk for lower extremity injury in runners and gymnasts. Thirty articles were reviewed, and 22 were included in this assessment. Results: Aerial and ground athletes share many intrinsic risk factors for AT rupture, including overuse and degeneration of the tendon as well as anatomical variations that mechanically put an athlete at risk. Older athletes, athletes atypical in size for their sport, high tensile loads, leg dominance, and fatigue also may increase risk. Aerial athletes tend to have more extrinsic factors that play a role in this injury due to the varying landing surfaces from heights and technical maneuvers performed at various skill levels. Conclusion: Risk assessment for AT rupture in aerial and ground athletes is multivariable and difficult in terms of developing prevention strategies. Quantitative measures of individual risk factors may help identify major contributors to injury.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available