No abstract

Objective:Ringette and female ice hockey are high participation sports in Canada. Despite policies disallowing body checking, both sports have high injury and concussion rates. This study aimed to compare physical contact (PC), head contact (HC), and suspected injury and concussion incidence rates (IRs) in female varsity ringette and ice hockey.Design:Cross-sectional.Setting:Canadian ice arenas.Participants:Eighteen Canadian female university ringette and ice hockey tournament/playoff games in the 2018-2019/2019-2020 seasons.Assessment of Risk Factors:Game video-recordings were analyzed using Dartfish video-analysis software to compare both sports.Main Outcome Measures:Univariate Poisson regression analyses (adjusted for cluster by team, offset by game-minutes) were used to estimate PC, HC, and suspected injury IRs and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to compare rates across sports. Proportions of body checks (level 4-5 trunk PC) and direct HC (HC1) penalized were reported.Results:Analyses of 36 team-games (n = 18 ringette, n = 18 hockey) revealed a 19% lower rate of PCs in ringette than ice hockey {IRR = 0.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-0.90]}, but a 98% higher rate of body checking [IRR = 1.98 (95% CI, 1.27-3.09)] compared to ice hockey. Ringette had a 40% higher rate of all HC1s [IRR = 1.40 (95% CI, 1.00-1.96)] and a 3-fold higher rate of suspected injury [IRR = 3.11 (95% CI, 1.13-8.60)] than ice hockey. The proportion of penalized body checks and HC1s were low across sports.Conclusions:Body checking and HC1 rates were significantly higher in ringette compared to ice hockey, despite rules disallowing both, and very few were penalized. These findings will inform future injury prevention research in ringette and female ice hockey.

Objective:To examine injury (including concussion) rates, location, type, mechanisms, and risk factors in sledge hockey players.Design:Cross-sectional survey.Setting:Sledge hockey players, worldwide, across all levels of play.Participants:Sledge hockey players (ages ≥14 years) who played in the 2019 to 2020 season were recruited through email, social media, and word of mouth communication.Assessment of Risk Factors:Participant characteristics (eg, age, sex, disability) were examined as potential injury risk factors.Main Outcome Measures:Injury rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) examining potential risk factors were reported based on univariate Poisson regression analyses. Injury proportions by type, location, and mechanism were described.Results:Ninety-two players initiated the survey, and 77 (83.7%) provided some injury information. Forty-seven injuries included 16 concussions in 9 of 77 players (11.7%) and 31 non-concussion injuries in 20 of 77 players (26.0%) were reported. The overall IR was 13.2 injuries/1000 athlete-exposures [95% confidence interval (CI); 9.6-17.6]. The game IR (28.4 injuries/1000 game-exposures, 95% CI; 18.6-41.7) was higher than practice IR (4.4 injuries/1000 practice-exposures, 95% CI; 2.2-7.9) (IRR = 6.5, 95% CI; 3.1-14.5). The most common injury locations were the head (34.0%), wrist/hand (14.8%), and shoulder (10.6%). The most common significant injury types were concussion (36.2%) and bone fracture (8.5%). Body checking was the primary mechanism for injuries caused by contact with another player (42.1%) Age, sex, disability, and level of play were not found as injury risk factors.Conclusions:Concussions and upper extremity injuries were the most common sledge hockey injuries reported, with body checking being the most common mechanism. This research will inform development of prevention strategies in sledge hockey.

No abstract

No abstract