4.6 Article

Epidemiology of injuries in outdoor and indoor hockey players over one season: a prospective cohort study

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 52, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098948

Keywords

epidemiology; field hockey; prospective study design; injury; hockey

Categories

Funding

  1. German Federal Institute for Sport Science [2515BI0111]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To determine the incidence and characteristics of hockey (field hockey') injuries over the course of one outdoor and indoor season. Comparisons of female versus male players, outdoor versus indoor season and match versus practice were performed. Methods Female and male teams of the first, second, third, regional and youth divisions were recruited among a local hockey association in Northern Germany, and followed over an indoor and an outdoor season. Exposure times and location, type, severity and cause of injuries during practice and matches were documented by the coaches or medical staff and collected weekly. Prevalence and incidence rates were calculated. Results Of the 232 players (meanSD age 20.7 +/- 4.7 years, 68.1% male, 31.9% first division), 84 players (36.2%) suffered 108 new injuries during the season. The overall incidence rate was 3.7 injuries per 1000 player hours (95%CI 3.0 to 4.4). The injury incidence was lower in practice (2.7 per 1000 player practice hours, 95%CI 2.0 to 3.3) than in matches (9.7 per 1000 player match hours, 95%CI 6.8 to 12.7), and was similar for female and male players as well as during the outdoor and the indoor season. Most injuries affected the lower limb (thigh, knee and ankle) and occurred without contact (58.3%). Severe injuries (n=34; 31.5%) were predominantly located at the knee and hand/finger. Conclusion Hockey players have a high prevalence and incidence of injuries, especially at the lower limb.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available