TY - JOUR A1 - Achenbach, Leonard A1 - Klein, Christian A1 - Luig, Patrick A1 - Bloch, Hendrik A1 - Schneider, Dominik A1 - Fehske, Kai T1 - Collision with opponents - but not foul play - dominates injury mechanism in professional men's basketball JF - BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation N2 - Background To identify injury patterns and mechanisms in professional men’s basketball by means of video match analysis. Methods In Germany, injuries are registered with the statutory accident insurance for professional athletes (VBG) by clubs or club physicians as part of occupational accident reporting. Moderate and severe injuries (absence of > 7 days) sustained during basketball competition in one of four seasons (2014–2017 and 2018–2019) in the first or second national men’s league in Germany were prospectively analyzed using a newly developed standardized observation form. Season 2017–2018 was excluded because of missing video material. Results Video analysis included 175 (53%) of 329 moderate and severe match injuries. Contact patterns categorized according to the different body sites yielded eight groups of typical injury patterns: one each for the head, shoulders, and ankles, two for the thighs, and three for the knees. Injuries to the head (92%), ankles (76%), shoulders (70%), knees (47%), and thighs (32%) were mainly caused by direct contact. The injury proportion of foul play was 19%. Most injuries (61%) occurred in the central zone below the basket. More injuries occurred during the second (OR 1.8, p = 0.018) and fourth quarter (OR 1.8, p = 0.022) than during the first and third quarter of the match. Conclusion The eight identified injury patterns differed substantially in their mechanisms. Moderate and severe match injuries to the head, shoulders, knees, and ankles were mainly caused by collision with opponents and teammates. Thus, stricter rule enforcement is unlikely to facilitate safer match play. KW - epidemiology KW - mechanism KW - contact KW - non-contact´ KW - injury prevention KW - match load Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-261765 VL - 13 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Fehske, Kai A1 - Berninger, Markus T. A1 - Alm, Lena A1 - Hoffmann, Reinhard A1 - Zellner, Johannes A1 - Kösters, Clemens A1 - Barzen, Stefan A1 - Raschke, Michael J. A1 - Izadpanah, Kaywan A1 - Herbst, Elmar A1 - Domnick, Christoph A1 - Schüttrumpf, Jan Philipp A1 - Krause, Matthias T1 - Aktueller Versorgungsstandard von Patellafrakturen in Deutschland JF - Der Unfallchirurg N2 - Hintergrund Die Versorgung von Patellafrakturen ist technisch anspruchsvoll. Auch wenn die radiologischen Ergebnisse zumeist zufriedenstellend sind, deckt sich dies häufig nicht mit der subjektiven Einschätzung der Patienten. Die klassische Versorgung mittels Drahtzuggurtung weist einige Komplikationen auf. Die winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese hat sich in den letzten Jahren biomechanisch als vorteilhaft erwiesen. Fragestellung Von wem werden Patellafrakturen in Deutschland versorgt? Wie sieht der aktuelle Versorgungsstandard aus? Haben sich „moderne“ Osteosyntheseformen durchgesetzt? Was sind die häufigsten Komplikationen? Material und Methoden Die Mitglieder der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie sowie der Deutschen Kniegesellschaft wurden aufgefordert, an einer Onlinebefragung teilzunehmen. Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 511 komplett ausgefüllte Fragebogen ausgewertet. Die Befragten sind zum größten Teil auf Unfallchirurgie spezialisiert (51,5 %) und verfügen über langjährige Berufserfahrung in Traumazentren. Die Hälfte der Operateure versorgt ≤5 Patellafrakturen jährlich. In knapp 40 % der Fälle wird die präoperative Bildgebung um eine Computertomographie ergänzt. Die klassische Zuggurtung ist noch die bevorzugte Osteosyntheseform bei allen Frakturtypen (Querfraktur 52 %, Mehrfragmentfrakturen 40 %). Bei Mehrfragmentfrakturen entscheiden sich 30 % der Operateure für eine winkelstabile Plattenosteosynthese. Bei Beteiligung des kaudalen Pols dient als zusätzliche Sicherung die McLaughlin-Schlinge (60 %). Diskussion Der Versorgungsstandard von Patellafrakturen in Deutschland entspricht weitgehend der aktualisierten S2e-Leitlinie. Nach wie vor wird die klassische Zuggurtungsosteosynthese als Verfahren der Wahl genutzt. Weitere klinische (Langzeit‑)Studien werden benötigt, um die Vorteile der winkelstabilen Plattenosteosynthese zu verifizieren. N2 - Background The treatment of patella fractures is technically demanding. Although the radiological results are mostly satisfactory, this often does not correspond to the subjective assessment of the patients. The classical treatment with tension band wiring with K‑wires has several complications. Fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis seems to be biomechanically advantageous. Objective Who is treating patella fractures in Germany? What is the current standard of treatment? Have modern forms of osteosynthesis become established? What are the most important complications? Material and methods The members of the German Society for Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery and the German Knee Society were asked to participate in an online survey. Results A total of 511 completed questionnaires were evaluated. Most of the respondents are specialized in trauma surgery (51.5%), have many years of professional experience and work in trauma centers. Of the surgeons 50% treat ≤5 patella fractures annually. In almost 40% of the cases preoperative imaging is supplemented by computed tomography. The classical tension band wiring with K‑wires is still the preferred form of osteosynthesis for all types of fractures (transverse fractures 52%, comminuted fractures 40%). In the case of comminuted fractures 30% of the surgeons choose fixed-angle plate osteosynthesis. If the inferior pole is involved a McLaughlin cerclage is used for additional protection in 60% of the cases. Discussion The standard of care for patella fractures in Germany largely corresponds to the updated S2e guidelines. Tension band wiring is still the treatment of choice. Further (long-term) clinical studies are needed to verify the advantages of fixed-angle plates. T2 - Current treatment standard for patella fractures in Germany KW - Kniegelenk KW - Winkelstabile Platte KW - Klassische Zuggurtung KW - Versorgungsstrategien KW - Umfrage KW - knee joint KW - fixed-angle plate KW - tension band wiring KW - treatment strategy KW - survey Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-235047 SN - 0177-5537 VL - 124 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Szymski, Dominik A1 - Achenbach, Leonard A1 - Siebentritt, Martin A1 - Simoni, Karola A1 - Kuner, Norbert A1 - Pfeifer, Christian A1 - Krutsch, Werner A1 - Alt, Volker A1 - Meffert, Rainer A1 - Fehske, Kai T1 - Injury epidemiology of 626 athletes in surfing, wind surfing and kite surfing JF - Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine N2 - Introduction/Background Surfing, wind surfing and kite surfing enjoy a growing popularity with a large number of athletes worldwide. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the injury profiles and compare the injury profiles of these three extreme water sports. Materials and Methods These data for this retrospective cohort study were collected through an online standardised questionnaire during the 2017–18 season. The questionnaire included questions about anthropometry, skill level, injury diagnosis, injury mechanism, environmental conditions and training regimes. Results The 626 athletes included reported 2584 injuries. On average, each athlete sustained 4.12 injuries during the season. The most frequent injury location was in the lower extremity, in particular the foot, with 49 (16.4%) injuries in surfing, 344 (18.3%) in wind surfing and 79 (19.7%) in kite surfing. Surfing demonstrated a particularly high rate of head injuries (n = 37; 12.4%). Other frequent injury types were skin lesions (up to 42.1%) and contusions (up to 40.5%). The most common injury across all surfing sports was skin lesions of the foot (wind surfing: 11.7%; kite surfing: 13.2%; surfing: 12.7%). In surfing, skin lesions of the head were frequently observed (n = 24; 8.0%). In surfing, a ‘too large wave’ (n = 18; 24.7%) was main cause of the injury, while in wind surfing (n = 189; 34.5%) and kite surfing (n = 65; 36.7%) ‘own incompetence’ led to the most injuries. Conclusion This unique study compares injury epidemiology and mechanism in the three most popular surfing sports: wind surfing, kite surfing and surfing. Overall, injuries were sustained mainly in the lower extremity, while surfing also demonstrated a high rate of head injuries. KW - water sports KW - injury KW - training KW - ankle KW - foot KW - epidemiology Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-261545 VL - 12 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Szymski, Dominik A1 - Aschenbach, Leonard A1 - Krutsch, Volker A1 - Alt, Volker A1 - Meffert, Rainer A1 - Krutsch, Werner A1 - Fehske, Kai T1 - Injury epidemiology in men's professional team sports: is media analysis helpful? JF - Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery N2 - Introduction Epidemiological injury surveillance in professional sports is often based on online media analysis in order to collect necessary data. However, the validation of this study protocol is lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the validity of injury surveillance in men's professional team sports based on media reports. Methods In a retrospective cohort study, the validity of media-data-relating injuries was investigated in participating teams of the highest two German divisions in men's professional basketball (BB) and handball (HB) in the season 2018/2019. Injury protocols completed by the team physicians were compared to those of sports media injury reports. Results The study population was composed of 133 athletes (54 BB and 79 HB). Of 343 injuries reported by the team physicians, 151 (44%) could be identified by means of sports media reports. Severe injuries (n = 75, 72%) were reported more likely in sports media compared to less severe injuries (n = 76, 32%, p < 0.00001). Odds ratio (OR) was 5.33 (95% CI 3.22-8.82). No differences regarding injury reporting could be seen between the two team sports. Conclusion For severe injuries, media analysis may be a sufficient method for data collection in popular men's professional ball sports. An underestimation of true injury prevalence lies within the range of previous reported investigations concerning the validation of injury surveillance methods. Non-severe injuries could not be verified via media analysis in professional handball and basketball. KW - severe injury KW - professional KW - injury KW - media-based KW - evidence KW - validation Y1 - 2021 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-266690 SN - 1434-3916 VL - 141 IS - 4 ER -