4.5 Review

Prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in sports-Part I: Systematic review of risk factors in male athletes

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2725-3

关键词

Prevention; ACL injury; Risk factors; Male athletes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The purpose of this study was to report a comprehensive literature review on the risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries in male athletes. Methods All abstracts were read and articles of potential interest were reviewed in detail to determine on inclusion status for systematic review. Information regarding risk factors for ACL injuries in male athletes was extracted from all included studies in systematic fashion and classified as environmental, anatomical, hormonal, neuromuscular, or biomechanical. Data extraction involved general characteristics of the included studies (type of study, characteristics of the sample, type of sport), methodological aspects (for quality assessment), and the principal results for each type of risk factor. Result The principal findings of this systematic review related to the risk factors for ACL injury in male athletes are: (1) most of the evidence is related to environmental and anatomical risk factors; (2) dry weather conditions may increase the risk of non-contact ACL injuries in male athletes; (3) artificial turf may increase the risk of non-contact ACL injuries in male athletes; (4) higher posterior tibial slope of the lateral tibial plateau may increase the risk of non-contact ACL injuries in male athletes. Conclusion Anterior cruciate ligament injury in male athletes likely has a multi-factorial aetiology. There is a lack of evidence regarding neuromuscular and biomechanical risk factors for ACL injury in male athletes. Future research in male populations is warranted to provide adequate prevention strategies aimed to decrease the risk of this serious injury in these populations. Level of evidence Systematic review on level I-IV studies, Level IV.

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

4.5
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