Abstract:Background
Running-related injuries (RRIs) are a prevalent issue for runners, with several factors proposed to be causative. The majority of studies to date are limited by retrospective study design, small sample sizes and seem to focus on individual risk factors in isolation. This study aims to investigate the multifactorial contribution of risk factors to prospective RRIs.
Methods
Recreational runners (n = 258) participated in the study, where i… Show more
“…Hence, runners are predisposed to a heightened risk of stress fractures [4]. Contributing factors include prior injury, participation in marathon training, choice of footwear, and running kinematics [5]. The occurrence of stress fractures in athletes is also influenced by specific factors such as muscle attachments in the surrounding area, muscle fatigue, which can result in the transmission of excessive forces to the underlying bone, and the nature of athletic activity.…”
Iliac stress fractures (ISF) are uncommon in sports, particularly among runners, and are attributed to repetitive loading and other predisposing factors. ISF poses diagnostic challenges due to nonspecific symptoms and the limited sensitivity of conventional imaging procedures. The reported case is about a 51year-old male marathon runner with consecutive bilateral ISF. Initial symptoms included mechanical pain in the right buttock, leading to a diagnosis confirmed via pelvic MRI. Conservative management with eight weeks rest from sport activity was indicated with symptom resolution and return to sport. However, 20 days after returning to sport, the patient developed left-sided symptoms post-resumption of running, with MRI confirming a new ISF. An additional eight weeks of rest was prescribed, allowing the patient to resume sport at preinjury levels. ISF should be considered in runners presenting with gluteal pain, emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis. MRI emerges as a valuable tool for accurate diagnosis, guiding appropriate management strategies. Conservative management focusing on rest is paramount for favorable outcomes and optimizing runners' health and performance.
“…Hence, runners are predisposed to a heightened risk of stress fractures [4]. Contributing factors include prior injury, participation in marathon training, choice of footwear, and running kinematics [5]. The occurrence of stress fractures in athletes is also influenced by specific factors such as muscle attachments in the surrounding area, muscle fatigue, which can result in the transmission of excessive forces to the underlying bone, and the nature of athletic activity.…”
Iliac stress fractures (ISF) are uncommon in sports, particularly among runners, and are attributed to repetitive loading and other predisposing factors. ISF poses diagnostic challenges due to nonspecific symptoms and the limited sensitivity of conventional imaging procedures. The reported case is about a 51year-old male marathon runner with consecutive bilateral ISF. Initial symptoms included mechanical pain in the right buttock, leading to a diagnosis confirmed via pelvic MRI. Conservative management with eight weeks rest from sport activity was indicated with symptom resolution and return to sport. However, 20 days after returning to sport, the patient developed left-sided symptoms post-resumption of running, with MRI confirming a new ISF. An additional eight weeks of rest was prescribed, allowing the patient to resume sport at preinjury levels. ISF should be considered in runners presenting with gluteal pain, emphasizing the importance of early diagnosis. MRI emerges as a valuable tool for accurate diagnosis, guiding appropriate management strategies. Conservative management focusing on rest is paramount for favorable outcomes and optimizing runners' health and performance.
“…However, 8 years later, despite improvements in research methodologies (e.g., Running Injury Surveillance Centre (RISC [Burke et al, 2023;Dillon et al, 2021Dillon et al, , 2023), and recommendations for standardised injury registration methods (Kluitenberg et al, 2016), there is still disagreement on injury rates and risk factors for injury (Ceyssens et al, 2019;Fredette et al, 2022;Peterson, Hawke, et al, 2022). This prompts three questions.…”
Inconsistent and restricted definitions of injury have contributed to limitations in determining injury rates and identifying risk factors for running‐related injuries (RRIs). The aim of this scoping review was to investigate the definitions and surveillance methods of RRIs. A systematic electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and June 2023 which investigated RRIs in adult running populations, providing a definition for a general RRI. Results were extracted and collated. 204 articles were included. Three primary criteria were used to define RRIs: physical description, effect on training and medical intervention, while three secondary criteria are also associated with definitions: cause/onset of injury, location, and social consequences. Further descriptors and sub‐descriptors form these criteria. The use of Boolean operators resulted in nine variations in definitions. Inconsistency is evident among definitions of RRIs. Injury definitions seem to be important for two main reasons: firstly, determining accurate injury rates, and secondly, in research examining risk factors. For the latter, definitions seem to be very limited, only capturing severe injuries and failing to recognise the full development process of RRIs, precluding the identification of conclusive risk factors. A potential two‐approach solution is the initial use of a broad definition acting as a gatekeeper for identifying any potential injury, and follow‐up with an extensive surveillance tool to capture the specific consequences of the varying severity of RRIs.
Understanding injury severity is essential to inform injury prevention practice. The aims of this scoping review were to investigate how running‐related injury (RRI) severity is measured, compare how it differs across studies, and examine whether it influences study outcomes (i.e., injury rates and risk factor identification). This scoping review was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework. A systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscuss, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases. Included studies were published in English between January 1980 and December 2023, investigated RRIs in adult running populations, and included a measure of injury severity. Results were extracted and collated. Sixty‐six studies were included. Two predominant primary criteria are used to define injury severity: the extent of the effect on running and/or the extent of the physical description. When secondary definition criteria are considered, 13 variations of injury severity measurement are used. Two approaches are used to grade injury severity: a categorization approach or a continuous numerical scale. Overall, the measurement of RRI severity is relatively inconsistent across studies. Less than half of studies report incidence rates per level of injury severity, while none report specific risk factors across levels, making it difficult to determine if the approach to measuring injury severity influences these study outcomes. This lack of information is possibly contributing to inconsistent rates of RRIs reported, and the lack of clarity on risk factors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.