Characteristics of match-related head injuries in professional women's football: A prospective cohort study

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe the incidence, severity, burden, and mechanisms of three different match-related head injury categories in professional women's football. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. METHODS: Match-related head injuries in the Norwegian Women's Premier League were identified by video analysis and reports from team-physiotherapists. The Modified Happy Concussion Questionnaire was used to interview injured players. Incidence rates, severity, burden, and injury mechanisms were presented for three categories: match-related head injuries, suspected sports-related concussions and diagnosed sports-related concussions. RESULTS: Fourteen head injuries were included from a total of 135 matches and 246 players. Across the three injury categories, incidence rates and burden ranged from 0.7 (95% confidence interval: -0.1 to 1.4) to 3.1 (95% confidence interval: 1.5 to 4.8) and 21.1 (95% confidence interval: 20.3 to 21.9) to 32.3 (95% confidence interval: 30.7 to 34.0) per 1000 h of match play, respectively. Across all categories, median severity ranged from 6 (interquartile range: 2.5 to 7.5) to 9 (interquartile range: 7 to 78) days of time loss. Player-to-player contact was the main injury mechanism for match-related head injuries and suspected sports-related concussions, while ball-to-head impact caused most diagnosed sports-related concussions. CONCLUSIONS: Incidence rates varied depending on head injury inclusion criteria. Broader inclusion criteria identified a greater number of head injuries (match-related head injuries and suspected sports-related concussions), predominantly associated with shorter time loss and player-to-player contact. Conversely, stricter criteria (diagnosed sports-related concussions) captured fewer injuries characterized by longer time loss and a higher proportion of ball-to-head impacts.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.