4.6 Article

Injuries in whitewater kayaking

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 4, Pages 235-241

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsm.35.4.235

Keywords

kayaking; whitewater; injuries

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective-To provide epidemiological data on whitewater kayaking injuries using a descriptive study. Methods-A retrospective survey was distributed at whitewater events and club meetings, and made available and advertised on the world wide web, through postings and announcements to newsgroups, related sites, and search engines. Data on sex, age, experience, and ability were collected. Injury data collected included mechanism, activity, difficulty of rapid, and self reported severity. Results-Of the 392 kayaking respondents included in the final analysis, 219 suffered 282 distinct injury events. The number of days spent kayaking per season was the only independent predictor of injury. The overwhelming majority of injuries occurred while the kayaker was still in the boat (87%). Striking an object was the most common mechanism of injury (44%), followed by traumatic stress and overuse (25% each). The most common types of injury were abrasion (25%), tendinitis (25%), contusion (22%), and dislocation (17%). The upper extremity, especially the shoulder, was the most commonly injured area of the body. Although half of injured kayakers sought medical care for their injury, and almost one third missed more than one month of kayaking because of the injury, almost all (96%) reported a complete or good recovery. Conclusions-Factors relating to likelihood of injury appear to be connected with exposure, namely the number of days a year that the sport was pursued. Except for class V (extreme) kayakers, reports of injuries paralleled the number of participants. Kayakers reported injuries predominantly on rivers that they assessed to be at a level appropriate to their skills.

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