Injuries in Field Hockey Players: A Systematic Review

Abstract

BackgroundTo commence injury prevention efforts, it is necessary to understand the magnitude of the injury problem. No systematic reviews have yet investigated the extent of injuries in field hockey, despite the popularity of the sport worldwide.ObjectiveOur objective was to describe the rate and severity of injuries in field hockey and investigate their characteristics.MethodsWe conducted electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL. Prospective cohort studies were included if they were published in English in a peer-reviewed journal and observed all possible injuries sustained by field hockey players during the period of the study.ResultsThe risk of bias score of the 22 studies included ranged from three to nine of a possible ten. In total, 12 studies (55%) reported injuries normalized by field hockey exposure. Injury rates ranged from 0.1 injuries (in school-aged players) to 90.9 injuries (in Africa Cup of Nations) per 1000 player-hours and from one injury (in high-school women) to 70 injuries (in under-21 age women) per 1000 player-sessions. Studies used different classifications for injury severity, but—within studies—injuries were included mostly in the less severe category. The lower limbs were most affected, and contusions/hematomas and abrasions were common types of injury. Contact injuries are common, but non-contact injuries are also a cause for concern.ConclusionsConsiderable heterogeneity meant it was not possible to draw conclusive findings on the extent of the rate and severity of injuries. Establishing the extent of sports injury is considered the first step towards prevention, so there is a need for a consensus on injury surveillance in field hockey.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40279-017-0839-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Warm-Up Program to Reduce Injuries in Youth Field Hockey Players: A Quasi-Experiment

“…13 Despite the safety rules already implemented in field hockey, such as proper protective equipment, 14,15 injuries are still a cause for concern. 16 Most of the injuries in field hockey affect the lower limbs. 16 In the Netherlands, 110 000 field hockey injuries are registered each year.…”

Transient injuries are a problem in field hockey: A prospective one‐season cohort study

“…While the introduction of safety equipment may assist to relieve some of this burden, additional resources should also be made available to reduce the number of non‐contact injuries. These findings were further highlighted in a recent systematic review of field hockey injuries …”

“…These findings were further highlighted in a recent systematic review of field hockey injuries. 11 The potential for low back injuries in field hockey is particularly important. Field hockey is played in a unique position, where athletes tend to run, change direction, and play the ball with the trunk in a flexed position.…”

“…Published consensus statements regarding injury definition and methodology for epidemiological studies exist for sports such as tennis, soccer, and rugby union, among others . As no such consensus agreement exists for field hockey, epidemiological studies on injury have used differing methodologies, making it difficult to compare results . The majority of these studies have been undertaken on female college athletes in the United States of America or during international tournaments.…”

“…[7][8][9][10] As no such consensus agreement exists for field hockey, epidemiological studies on injury have used differing methodologies, making it difficult to compare results. 11 The majority of these studies have been undertaken on female college athletes in the United States of America or during international tournaments. Reported time-loss injury rates are higher in field hockey compared to soccer (29.1/1000 h 12 vs 2.2-8.0/1000 h [13][14][15] ), while medical attention injuries are similar when compared with American football (4.6-18.8/1000 athletic exposures (AE) 16,17 vs 5.7-17.3/1000 AE [18][19][20].…”