American football injuries in Germany

Baltzer, A. W. A.; Ghadamgahi, Parwis D.; Granrath, M.; Pössel, H.-J.

doi:10.1007/s001670050024

Cited by 19 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[32, 134,135] Parachuting Fracture (100.0) [138] Roller Skating Fracture (86.5) Sprain (13.5) [142,143] Rollerblading / Inline Skating Fracture (83.3) Sprain (16.7) [ 77,176,179,186,188,190,191,[193][194][195][196]225,226] Soccer (Indoor) Sprain (87.8) [198,199] * Items with weight prevalence percentage smaller than 1.0% are omitted. [60] ) Aeroball 1.37 [61] American Football 0.54-4.15 [55,62,65] , (Game:…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on Ankle Injury and Ankle Sprain in Sports

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article systematically reviewed the epidemiology studies on sports injury which ankle injury was included. The time span started from 1977 to 2005. A total of 227 studies reporting injury pattern in 70 sports from 38 countries were included. The total included cases were 201600 with 32509 (16%) ankle injuries. A total of 11847 (84%) ankle sprains were recorded from 14098 cases with available ankle injury information. Results show that the ankle was the most common injured body site in 24 of the 70 included sports, especially in aeroball, wall climbing, indoor volleyball, mountaineering, netball, and field events in track and field. Ankle sprain was the major ankle injury in 33 of the 43 sports, especially in Australian football, field hockey, handball, orienteering, scooter and squash. In general sports injury among countries, the ankle was the second most common injured body site after the knee, and ankle sprain was the most common type of ankle injury. The incidence of ankle injury and ankle sprain was high in court game and team sports, such as rugby, soccer, volleyball, handball, basketball, field hockey, dancing, American football, netball and lacrosse. This systematic review provides a summary of the ankle injury epidemiology in sports. 1. Introduction People from all around the world are participating in sports nowadays for personal interest, relaxation, health and fitness training. However, sports is one of the major causes of injuries which is comparable to traffic accidents, home and leisure accidents, occupational injuries, and violence [1-4]. Sports injuries result in pain, loss of playing or working time, as well as medical expenditure. Severe injuries may result in bone fractures, functional instability, limited mobility, disability, permanent cease of sports participation, psychological problem, and perhaps death. For world-class and commercial sports teams, absence of key players due to unexpected injuries may result in defeats in major games and huge economic loss. Due to these undesired adverse effects, scientists and medical specialists are actively working on sports injury prevention [5-7]. The aim is to prevent sports injury and let people enjoy sports participation. The first procedure to tackle a problem is to identify the problem. In 1970, Roser and Clawson conducted an epidemiology study on football injuries in young athlete [8]. In 1971, MacIntosh conducted similar study on athletic injuries in University of Toronto [9]. In 1972 and 1973, Garrick conducted related studies in prevention of sports injuries [5] and prevention of ankle sprains [10]. To be more specific in identifying the problem, Garrick pioneered a series of ankle sprains epidemiology studies from 1977 [11]. Subsequent studies by Garrick investigated ankle injuries in different sport events including aerobic dance [12] , children and adolescent skiing [13] , women gymnastics [14] , ballet [15] , and in all sports [16]. From 1980 afterwards, numerous epidemiology studies were conducted on different sports, population, g...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on Ankle Injury and Ankle Sprain in Sports

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In youth and professional football, linemen have a threefold increased risk of injury, followed by running backs and Evaluation of the Back-in-Action test Battery In Uninjured High School American Football Players wide receivers, possibly due to frequent involvement in play actions and tackling. 2,[57][58][59][60][61][62] The current measurements reveal impaired results for the above listed position Group 1 including linemen (G1), which were alarmingly even below results of an age matched reference population. Comparably, recent studies have found a correlation between injury risk of the lower extremity and BMI >26 kg/m 2 in high school aged linemen.…”

Section: Functional Tests Reveal Major Deficits In Knee Capability Me...mentioning

confidence: 78%

Evaluation of the Back-in-Action test Battery In Uninjured High School American Football Players

Rohde

Rühlemann

Busch

et al. 2023

International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Return to sport testing is an established routine, especially for athletes who have ruptured their anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Various tests are performed, often combined in test batteries, such as the Back-in-action (BIA) test battery. Unfortunately, pre-injury performance is often unknown, and only few athletes pass the high demands of these test batteries. Purpose The aim of the study was to determine the performance of under 18 American football players on the BIA to establish pre-injury sport specific benchmarks for future RTS testing and to compare these values to data from an age-matched reference group. Methods Fifty-three healthy male American football players underwent a functional assessment using the “Back-in-action” test battery evaluating agility, speed (Parkour-Jumps and Quick-Feet test), balance (using a PC based balance board), and power (Counter-Movement-Jump [CMJ]) as objective measures. Their results were compared with a previously tested reference group (RP) and within the american football players (AF) through three subgroups according to field playing position. Results Overall, the American football (AF) athletes showed lower balance scores for both legs (AF: 3.71/3.57/3.61; RP: 3.4/3.2/3.2; p<0.002) compared to the reference population (RP). CMJ height and Quick-Feet results were not statistically different (p>0.05), Parkour-Jump times (AF: 8.18/ 8.13 sec.; RP: 5.9/5.9sec.; p<0.001) were significantly slower. Power output in all CMJ’s (AF: 46.86/36.94/37.36 W/kg; RP: 43.2/29.5/29 W/kg; p<0.001) was significantly higher than the RP. Passing and running game involved players (G2 & G3) showed significantly better balance scores (G2+G3: 3.36/3.27/3.33; G1: 4.22/4.06/4.10; p<0.001), higher jump height (G2&G3: 38.87/24.02/24.96 cm; G1: 32.03/19.50/18.96 cm; p<0.001) and more watts/kg (G2&G3: 48.83/37.21/37.64 W/kg; G1: 43.95/36.88/36.53 W/kg; p<0.001) compared to blocking players like Linemen (G1) and to the age matched reference population (RP). Conclusion Only 53% of the healthy athletes would have been cleared for sport using the BIA test criteria, which highlights the challenging passing criteria. Despite significantly greater power measurements, scores of balance and agility were poorer compared to the reference group, especially for linemen. These data may serve as sport and position specific reference for high school American football players, instead of using the non-specific reference group data. Study design cross-sectional study- Level of evidence IIb

show abstract

“…Injury rates are then calculated as the number of injuries per 1,000 hours of sports participation. 3,4,6,7,10,12,14,[27][28][29][30][31][32] This is the unit of risk adopted by many European researchers in sports such as football (soccer) and rugby.…”

Section: Exposurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…2,3 Although many systems are used, sports epidemiologists have reiterated the need for uniform reporting standards and methodologies. 2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Dance medicine researchers have echoed this call for a uniform standard. [15][16][17] The dance community may learn from discussions among sports medicine researchers about injury surveillance.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tools were derived from our comprehensive injury management and surveillance program developed over the last eight years at a modern dance organization, Alvin Ailey, which includes two companies and a large dance school. Following an extensive literature review, we attempted to incorporate the recommendations of sports medicine researchers, 1,2,[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]18 while making dance-specific modifications to reflect this population. This system has enabled us to ascertain the effectiveness of our program in reducing new Workers Compensation cases…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comprehensive Surveillance of Dance Injuries a Proposal for Uniform Reporting Guidelines for Professional Companies

Bronner

Ojofeitimi

Mayers

2006

Journal of Dance Medicine & Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varying methods of injury definition, data collection and interpretation of findings complicate analysis of results from epidemiological studies of sport and dance injuries. Comparison between studies is therefore difficult. Researchers have suggested adoption of uniform methodology for injury definition and reporting. This paper outlines a suggested comprehensive injury reporting system for professional dance companies. Components of a comprehensive injury surveillance system include: 1. pre-season screening of intrinsic risk factors, 2. extrinsic risk factor tracking, and 3. injury occurrence reporting system. Dance screens provide healthy baseline data, uncover existing pathology, and help define population characteristics. Extrinsic risk factor tracking includes quantification of exposure to specific environment, equipment, and technique demands. Exposure may be delineated as activity (number of performance, class, and rehearsal events) or time (hours of participation in dance activities) based. These exposure measures are then incorporated into incidence calculations, enabling injury rate comparison between populations. Standardized injury definitions are proposed to facilitate the comparison of injury rates. We propose defining “injury” as any physical complaint sustained by a dancer resulting from performance, rehearsal, or technique class. Injury is further delineated in the following ways: 1. physical complaint injury, 2. medical injury, 3. time-loss injury, and 4. financial injury. Coding by severity, injury type, location, tissue, activity, and style of dance and choreography is also included. We hope this may ultimately result in uniform injury registration for dancers of all ages and levels. Adoption of a common system should result in improved understanding of injury incidence and risk factors with potential to increase the effectiveness of injury prevention interventions and rehabilitation.

show abstract

American football injuries in Germany

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

A Systematic Review on Ankle Injury and Ankle Sprain in Sports

A Systematic Review on Ankle Injury and Ankle Sprain in Sports

Evaluation of the Back-in-Action test Battery In Uninjured High School American Football Players

Comprehensive Surveillance of Dance Injuries a Proposal for Uniform Reporting Guidelines for Professional Companies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About