OBJECTIVES: This 1-year prospective study compared 125 construction engineers and 188 combat artillery soldiers to determine whether there were differences in injury occurrences/ types because of their diverse occupational tasks and training requirements. Also, intrinsic factors were studied to establish any associations with a soldier's risk for injury. METHODS: Prestudy height, weight, and body mass index and fitness (3.2-km run, sit-ups, push-ups) data were collected prior to the injury medical records review. Approximately 30% of each battalion was studied. RESULTS: For engineers and artillery, 86.0% and 66.0% incurred at least one injury, respectively. Of total soldiers, 64.0% of engineers and 56.4% of artillerymen had injuries associated with limited duty profiles. Total injuries resulted in 743 days of limited duty time (5.9 days per soldier) in engineers and 1,078 days (5.7 days per soldier) in artillery. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also calculated. The odds of traumatic fractures were (OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.8-23.7) 6 times higher in engineers than artillery, but strains/sprains and abrasions/lacerations were (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.5-3.7; OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.0) two times higher in artillery than engineers. The number of limited duty days associated with knee injuries was significantly higher in engineers than artillery (p < 0.0001), and number of days for low back injuries was significantly higher in the artillerymen (p < 0.0001). Greater body mass was a risk factor for lower back pain and the body mass index was > or = 25 for strains/sprains in both units. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in injuries were reported between the two units. It is plausible that the differences were related to the diverse training exposures of the units. However, it is beyond the scope of this study to make conclusions about the causes of the injury differences. The data also indicate that body mass and body mass index were identified as modifiable injury risk factors for both units, which suggests that these injuries are preventable.
OBJECTIVES: This 1-year prospective study compared 125 construction engineers and 188 combat artillery soldiers to determine whether there were differences in injury occurrences/ types because of their diverse occupational tasks and training requirements. Also, intrinsic factors were studied to establish any associations with a soldier's risk for injury. METHODS: Prestudy height, weight, and body mass index and fitness (3.2-km run, sit-ups, push-ups) data were collected prior to the injury medical records review. Approximately 30% of each battalion was studied. RESULTS: For engineers and artillery, 86.0% and 66.0% incurred at least one injury, respectively. Of total soldiers, 64.0% of engineers and 56.4% of artillerymen had injuries associated with limited duty profiles. Total injuries resulted in 743 days of limited duty time (5.9 days per soldier) in engineers and 1,078 days (5.7 days per soldier) in artillery. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were also calculated. The odds of traumatic fractures were (OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.8-23.7) 6 times higher in engineers than artillery, but strains/sprains and abrasions/lacerations were (OR = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.5-3.7; OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.0) two times higher in artillery than engineers. The number of limited duty days associated with knee injuries was significantly higher in engineers than artillery (p < 0.0001), and number of days for low back injuries was significantly higher in the artillerymen (p < 0.0001). Greater body mass was a risk factor for lower back pain and the body mass index was > or = 25 for strains/sprains in both units. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in injuries were reported between the two units. It is plausible that the differences were related to the diverse training exposures of the units. However, it is beyond the scope of this study to make conclusions about the causes of the injury differences. The data also indicate that body mass and body mass index were identified as modifiable injury risk factors for both units, which suggests that these injuries are preventable.
Authors: Jonathan Peake; Susan Gargett; Michael Waller; Ruth McLaughlin; Tegan Cosgrove; Gary Wittert; Peter Nasveld; Peter Warfe Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Henri Taanila; Jaana H Suni; Pekka Kannus; Harri Pihlajamäki; Juha-Petri Ruohola; Jarmo Viskari; Jari Parkkari Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Stefan Sammito; Vedran Hadzic; Thomas Karakolis; Karen R Kelly; Susan P Proctor; Ainars Stepens; Graham White; Wes O Zimmermann Journal: Mil Med Res Date: 2021-12-10