Kjell Svensson1,2, Mattias Eckerman3, Marie Alricsson4,5, Theofilos Magounakis6, Suzanne Werner3,7. 1. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. kjell.svensson@ki.se. 2. CIFU/Capio Artro Clinic, Sophiahemmet, Box 5605, 114 86, Stockholm, Sweden. kjell.svensson@ki.se. 3. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Centre, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Health Sciences, Swedish Winter Sport Research Centre, Mid Sweden University, Östersund, Sweden. 5. Department of Sports Science, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden. 6. Clinic of Radiology, Gällivare Hospital, Gällivare, Sweden. 7. CIFU/Capio Artro Clinic, Sophiahemmet, Box 5605, 114 86, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim was to study possible differences of muscle injuries regarding type, localization and the extent of injury between the dominant and non-dominant leg in elite male football players. Another aim was to study the injury incidence of muscle injuries of the lower extremity during match and training. METHODS: Data were consecutively collected between 2007 and 2013 in a prospective cohort study based on 54 football players from one team of the Swedish first league. The injury incidence was calculated for both match and training, injuries to the hip adductors, quadriceps, hamstrings and triceps surae were diagnosed and evaluated with ultrasonography, and their length, depth and width were measured to determine the extent of structural muscle injuries. RESULTS: Fifty-four players suffered totally 105 of the studied muscle injuries. Out of these 105 injuries, the dominant leg was affected in 53 % (n = 56) of the cases. A significantly greater extent of the injury was found in the dominant leg when compared with the non-dominant leg with regard to structural injuries of the hamstrings. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Structural hamstring muscle injuries were found to be of greater extent in the dominant leg when compared with the non-dominant leg. This new finding should be taken into consideration when allowing the football player to return to play after leg muscle injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: The aim was to study possible differences of muscle injuries regarding type, localization and the extent of injury between the dominant and non-dominant leg in elite male football players. Another aim was to study the injury incidence of muscle injuries of the lower extremity during match and training. METHODS: Data were consecutively collected between 2007 and 2013 in a prospective cohort study based on 54 football players from one team of the Swedish first league. The injury incidence was calculated for both match and training, injuries to the hip adductors, quadriceps, hamstrings and triceps surae were diagnosed and evaluated with ultrasonography, and their length, depth and width were measured to determine the extent of structural muscle injuries. RESULTS: Fifty-four players suffered totally 105 of the studied muscle injuries. Out of these 105 injuries, the dominant leg was affected in 53 % (n = 56) of the cases. A significantly greater extent of the injury was found in the dominant leg when compared with the non-dominant leg with regard to structural injuries of the hamstrings. No other significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: Structural hamstring muscle injuries were found to be of greater extent in the dominant leg when compared with the non-dominant leg. This new finding should be taken into consideration when allowing the football player to return to play after leg muscle injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Authors: Per Hölmich; Kristian Thorborg; Christian Dehlendorff; Kim Krogsgaard; Christian Gluud Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Tero A H Järvinen; Teppo L N Järvinen; Minna Kääriäinen; Hannu Kalimo; Markku Järvinen Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Tero A H Järvinen; Teppo L N Järvinen; Minna Kääriäinen; Ville Aärimaa; Samuli Vaittinen; Hannu Kalimo; Markku Järvinen Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 4.098
Authors: Hans-Wilhelm Mueller-Wohlfahrt; Lutz Haensel; Kai Mithoefer; Jan Ekstrand; Bryan English; Steven McNally; John Orchard; C Niek van Dijk; Gino M Kerkhoffs; Patrick Schamasch; Dieter Blottner; Leif Swaerd; Edwin Goedhart; Peter Ueblacker Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Suzanne J Snodgrass; Kathleen E Ryan; Andrew Miller; Daphne James; Robin Callister Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Javier Raya-González; Daniel Castillo; Marta Domínguez-Díez; José Luis Hernández-Davó Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Ophelie Lavoie-Gagne; Nabil Mehta; Sumit Patel; Matthew R Cohn; Enrico Forlenza; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Brian Forsythe Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-09-23