4.6 Article

Head impacts sustained by male collegiate water polo athletes

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216369

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Exercise Medicine and Sport Sciences, School of Bio Sci, UC Irvine
  2. NIH T32 grant: UCI Multidisciplinary Training program in Exercise Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Water polo is a contact sport that is gaining popularity in the United States and carries a risk of repeated head impacts and concussion. The frequency and magnitude of sport-related head impacts have not been described for water polo. We aimed to compare patterns of empirically measured head impact exposure of male collegiate water polo players to patterns previously reported by a survey of current and former water polo athletes. Participants wore water polo caps instrumented with head impact sensors during three seasons of collegiate water polo. Peak linear acceleration (PLA) and peak rotational acceleration (PRA) were recorded for head impacts. Athlete positions were recorded by research staff at the occurrence of each head impact. Head impacts were sustained by athletes in offensive positions more frequently than in defensive and transition positions (246, 59.9% vs. 93, 22.6% vs. 72, 17.5%). 37% of all head impacts during gameplay were sustained by athletes playing the offensive center position. Impact magnitude (means +/- SD: PLA = 36.1 +/- 12.3g, PRA = 5.0 +/- 2.9 krads/sec(2)) did not differ between position or game scenario. Among goalies, impact frequency and magnitude were similar between games (means +/- SD: 0.54 +/-.51 hits/game, PLA = 36.9 +/- 14.2g, PRA = 4.3 +/- 4.2 krads/sec(2)) and practices (means +/- SD: 0.96 +/- 1.11 hits/practice, PLA = 43.7 +/- 14.5g, PRA = 3.9 +/- 2.5 krads/sec(2)). We report that collegiate water polo athletes are at risk for sport-related head impacts and impact frequency is dependent on game scenario and player position. In contrast, magnitude does not differ between scenarios or across positions.

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