Citation

Voaklander DC, Saunders LD, Quinney HA, Macnab RB. Clin. J. Sport. Med. 1996; 6(1): 15-21.

Affiliation

Department of Physical Education and Sport Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1996, Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, Publisher Lippincott Williams and Wilkins)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

8925359

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the nature and incidence of injuries suffered by a sample of recreational and old-timer ice hockey players. DESIGN: Random sample of teams followed prospectively. SETTING: Various hockey rinks in the Greater Edmonton Region. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and thirty-one subjects--287 adult male recreational (AMRL) and 144 male old-timer (OTL) from five leagues were followed over the 1992-93 hockey season. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Injuries sustained during the duration of a hockey season. RESULTS: A total of 151 injuries (100 AMRL and 51 OTL) were reported. The aggregate injury rate was 12.2/1000 player-exposures (12.3 AMRL and 12.0 OTL). The anatomic region most often injured by AMRL players was the head/neck/facial area (32%) while OTL players reported a greater proportion of lower extremity injuries (40%). Both groups reported sprains/strains as the most common diagnosis (35% AMRL and 47% OTL). The predominant injury mechanism for AMRL players was stick contact (24%) and for OTL players was puck contact (23%). No significant differences were detected between the anatomic, diagnostic, and mechanistic distributions of injury between AMRL and OTL players. Seventy-five percent of injuries occurred during league games, 10% during playoff games, 5% during tournament games, and 10% during practices. Penalties were assessed in 31% of injury instances. Forty-two percent of head/neck/facial injuries, 32% of upper extremity injuries, 13% of torso injuries, and 15% of lower extremity occurred as a result of penalizable behavior (p = 0.01). Three percent of players wearing full or half face protectors suffered facial injuries while 9% of players not wearing facial protection reported facial injuries (p = 0.03; Relative Risk = 2.56). CONCLUSIONS: The injury rates observed were lower than reported rates for major/elite hockey. The proportion of players injured through body contact was lower than that observed in adult major/elite hockey while the diagnostic and anatomic distribution of injury was similar. Studies such as this are useful in the development of injury prevention strategies.