4.3 Article

Anterior cruciate ligament tear during the menstrual cycle in female recreational skiers

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER MASSON
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.02.005

关键词

ACL; Injury risk; Menstrual cycle; Female skiers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Women run a 4-8-fold greater risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear than men, and especially during the pre-ovulation stage of their cycle. The main study objective was to describe the distribution of ACL lesions according to menstrual cycle in a large population of female recreational skiers. Materials and methods: A prospective study was conducted during the 2010-11 ski season on women sustaining ACL tear during skiing. Patients filled out a questionnaire during consultation with the mountain physician, including date of last menstrual period (LMP) and contraceptive method. Fifty-seven of the 229 patients with diagnosed ACL tear were excluded from analysis, 41 being post-menopausal (mean age, 47 9 years), and 16 having irregular cycles or LMP > 30 days. One hundred and seventy-two patients (mean age, 34 +/- 8.7 years) were thus included. Results: Fifty-eight women (33.72%) were in follicular phase, 63(36.63%) in ovulatory phase and 51(29.65%) in luteal phase; difference with respect to the theoretic distribution regardless of menstrual phase was highly significant: chi(2) = 48. 32; P=0.00001. Fifty-three of the 172 women (30.8%) were taking oral contraceptives. ACL tear was 2.4-fold more frequent in pre-ovulatory than post-ovulatory phase, whether in women using oral or other contraceptives: 85/119 (71.4%) vs. 36/53 (67.9%); P=0.64. Conclusion: ACL tear risk in skiing in women is not constant over the menstrual cycle, being 2.4 fold more frequent in pre-ovulatory (follicular and ovulatory) than post-ovulatory phase (luteal). Oral contraception seems not to exert any protective effect. Level of evidence: Level IV. Retrospective cohort study. (C) 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. 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

4.3
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