4.3 Article

A Temporal Model for Nonelite Triathlon Race Injuries

期刊

CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 249-253

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318249945b

关键词

triathlon; Ironman; injury; endurance; triathlete; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To (1) classify types and severity of injuries, (2) establish a temporal model for both the incidence and prevalence of injuries, and (3) identify the most appropriate medical manpower needed for nonelite triathlon competition. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Oklahoma City Redman Triathlon. Participants: One hundred four triathletes seeking medical care (575 race starters). Main Outcome Measures: Prevalence and diagnoses of athletes seeking medical care, 15-minute injury incidence reports with severity classification, and duration of treatment. Results: The prevalence of injuries sustained was 37.7% and 10.8% in the Ironman and half Ironman events, respectively. 72.2% of half Ironman injuries were sustained during hours 6 and 7, with a presentation rate of 78 per 1000 race starters during this time interval. The Ironman had a much higher rate of severe injuries at 38.2% +/- 6.0% (95% confidence interval) and a longer average duration of treatment culminating in hour 14 at 62.3 minutes. Conclusions: Triathlon medical support should be modified to fit the temporal flow of injuries sustained throughout nonelite Ironman events. Previous studies have made recommendations from data collected from elite competitions that may not be ideal for nonelite races due to the higher rate of injuries, injury severity, and longer duration competition. Therefore, we recommend increasing support by 20% during the latter stages of triathlons, starting at hour 14, to 3 physicians and 9 nurses and other medical volunteers per 100 competitors. Further research into the implementation of these strategies should be performed before these data should be applied as common practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据