Borchers, James

Background: Football has one of the highest injury rates (IRs) in sports, ranging from 4.1 to 8.6 per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Previous research has reported that athletes may be at an increased risk of suffering lower extremity (LE) injuries after a concussion. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of LE injuries in collegiate football athletes after a concussion. We predicted that the overall LE IR would increase after a concussion and that each position group would also demonstrate a similar increase in LE injuries after a concussion. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Daily attendance and injury records were prospectively collected by licensed team medical providers for the 2012 through 2016 college football regular seasons. Each injury report included the date of injury, position group, body part injured, and type of injury. IRs per 1000 AEs with 95% CIs were calculated to evaluate LE injuries at different time points after a concussion (remainder of season, next season, any additional seasons) and by months (<6 months, 6-12 months, >12 months). Mid- P exact tests were utilized to establish injury rate ratios (IRRs) to compare the IR between variables. Results: There was no significant difference in LE IRRs between the athletes post- versus preconcussion ( P = .20) or between the postconcussion and no concussion (control) athletes ( P = .08). There was an increased LE IR beyond 12 months in the postconcussion group (IR, 9.08 [95% CI, 3.68-18.89]) compared with the no concussion group (IR, 2.88 [95% CI, 2.04-3.96]) (IRR, 3.16 [95% CI, 1.21-7.15]; P = .02). Line position players had an increase in LE injuries after a concussion (IRR, 6.22 [95% CI, 1.31-23.68]; P = .03) compared with linemen with no concussion. Conclusion: There was no initial increase in LE IRs immediately after a concussion; however, there was an increased LE IR more than 12 months after a concussion. There was no increase in LE IRs demonstrated by skill and other position groups. Line position players experienced an increased LE IR the next season after a concussion or greater than 12 months after the injury.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate injury characteristics by position groups. Design: Prospective, observational study. Setting: A single, major Division I collegiate football program. Participants: All players on a collegiate football program each fall regular season. Independent Variables: Exposure to Division I collegiate football and position groups. Main Outcome Measures: Injury rates (IRs) per 1000 athlete exposures (AEs) and injury rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated and analyzed for all monitored injury variables, which included time in the season, body part, type of injury, game and practice injuries, mechanism of injury, and type of exposure. Results: During the 2012 to 2016 fall regular seasons, there were 200 reported injuries sustained from 48 615 AE. The overall 5-year IR was 4.11 per 1000 AEs (3.57-4.72 95% confidence intervals). Skill players sustained the highest IR in the preseason (IR, 7.56) compared with line (IR, 4.26) and other (IR, 4.10) position groups. In addition, skill players demonstrated a significantly higher IRR compared with the line (IRR, 1.75, P < 0.05) and other (IRR, 1.85, P < 0.05) position groups. Conclusions: Skill players sustained most of their injuries in the preseason, whereas the linemen and other position groups suffered most of their injuries in the first half of the regular season. Skill players demonstrated a significantly higher IR in preseason, noncontact mechanism injuries, and injuries to the upper leg and thigh compared with line and other position groups. Efforts to reduce soft-tissue muscle strains in skill players targeting the preseason may provide one of the best opportunities to significantly decrease current football IRs, whereas efforts to reduce contact exposures may have the greatest effect on concussions and contact mechanism injuries for the other position group. There were no significant differences in IRs between position groups and type of exposure.

Context: The fourth edition of the Preparticipation Physical Evaluation recommends functional testing for the musculoskeletal portion of the examination; however, normative data across sex and grade level are limited. Establishing normative data can provide clinicians reference points with which to compare their patients, potentially aiding in the development of future injury-risk assessments and injury-mitigation programs.Objective: To establish normative functional performance and limb-symmetry data for high school-aged male and female athletes in the United States.Design: Cross-sectional study.Setting: Athletic training facilities and gymnasiums across the United States.Patients or Other Participants: A total of 3951 male and female athletes who participated on high school-sponsored basketball, football, lacrosse, or soccer teams enrolled in this nationwide study.Main Outcome Measure(s): Functional performance testing consisted of 3 evaluations. Ankle-joint range of motion, balance, and lower extremity muscular power and landing control were assessed via the weight-bearing ankle-dorsiflexion–lunge, single-legged anterior-reach, and anterior single-legged hop-for-distance (SLHOP) tests, respectively. We used 2-way analyses of variance and χ2 analyses to examine the effects of sex and grade level on ankle-dorsiflexion–lunge, single-legged anterior-reach, and SLHOP test performance and symmetry.Results: The SLHOP performance differed between sexes (males = 187.8% ± 33.1% of limb length, females = 157.5% ± 27.8% of limb length; t = 30.3, P &lt; .001). A Cohen d value of 0.97 indicated a large effect of sex on SLHOP performance. We observed differences for SLHOP and ankle-dorsiflexion–lunge performance among grade levels, but these differences were not clinically meaningful.Conclusions: We demonstrated differences in normative data for lower extremity functional performance during preparticipation physical evaluations across sex and grade levels. The results of this study will allow clinicians to compare sex- and grade-specific functional performances and implement approaches for preventing musculoskeletal injuries in high school-aged athletes.

Background: American football and rugby players are at substantial risk of injury because of the full-contact nature of these sports. Methodological differences between previous epidemiological studies hamper an accurate comparison of injury rates between American football and rugby. Purpose: To directly compare injury rates in American collegiate football and rugby, specified by location, type, mechanism, and severity of injury, as reported by licensed medical professionals. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Licensed medical professionals (athletic trainer or physician) associated with the football and rugby teams of a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I university reported attendance and injury details over 3 autumn seasons. Injuries were categorized by the location, type, mechanism, and severity of injury, and the injury rate was calculated per 1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). Injury rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated to compare overall, game, and practice injury rates within and between sports. Results: The overall injury rate was 4.9/1000 AEs in football versus 15.2/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 3.1 (95% CI, 2.3-4.2). Game injury rates were higher than practice injury rates: IRR = 6.5 (95% CI, 4.5-9.3) in football and IRR = 5.1 (95% CI, 3.0-8.6) in rugby. Injury rates for the shoulder, wrist/hand, and lower leg and for sprains, fractures, and contusions in rugby were >4 times as high as those in football (all P ≤ 0.006). Concussion rates were 1.0/1000 AEs in football versus 2.5/1000 AEs in rugby. Most injuries occurred via direct player contact, especially during games. The rate of season-ending injuries (>3 months of time loss) was 0.8/1000 AEs in football versus 1.0/1000 AEs in rugby: IRR = 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-3.4). Conclusion: Overall injury rates were substantially higher in collegiate rugby compared with football. Similarities between sports were observed in the most common injury types (sprains and concussions), locations (lower extremity and head), and mechanisms (direct player contact). Upper extremity injuries were more common in rugby, and the rate of season-ending injuries was similar between sports.