4.6 Article

Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: A national population-based study

期刊

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 622-627

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.07.005

关键词

Anterior cruciate ligament; Medial; Laterals; Collateral ligament; Tear of meniscus; Cost; Epidemiology; Population

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There has been in intensive research effort directed at determining the cause of non-contact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury over the past decade, but few Studies have reported data on the incidence of ACL and other knee ligament injury in the general population. New Zealand's no-fault injury compensation data provides a national injury resource of data oil claims for knee ligament injury. The goal of this paper was to provide a descriptive epidemiology of knee ligament injury in this country. Data were obtained for knee ligament injuries between I July 2000 and 30 June 2005. Injuries were categorised as non-surgical (NS), ACL surgeries (ACLS) and other knee ligament Surgeries (OKLS). Incidence rates per 100,000 person-years were computed using population estimates. Costs and number of treatment/rehabilitation visits were obtained as an indication of severity. The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 1147.1 for NS, 36.9 for ACLS and 9.1 for OKLS. Males had a higher incidence rate than females for NS, ACLS. and OKLS. The mean (and median) number of treatment visits were NS: 6.6 (4). ACLS: 27.1 (24), and OKLS: 31.3 (24). The mean (median) treatment costs of these injuries were NS $885 ($129), ACLS $11,157 ($8574), and OKLS $15,663 ($8054). Analysis of injury descriptions for ACLS injuries indicated that 58% involved a non-contact mechanism of injury. These data underscore the high level of short-term disability associated with knee ligament injuries, especially ACL injuries that require surgery. (C) 2008 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据