Mohamed Jarraya1, Cheri A Blauwet2, Michel D Crema3,4, Rafael Heiss5, Frank W Roemer3,5, Daichi Hayashi3,6, Wayne E Derman7,8, Ali Guermazi9,10. 1. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Quantitative Imaging Center, Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Institute of Sports Imaging, Department of Sports Medicine, French National Institute of Sport (INSEP), Paris, France. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. 6. Department of Radiology, Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, NY, USA. 7. Institute of Sport and Exercise Medicine, Department of Surgical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa. 8. IOC Research Center, Cape Town, South Africa. 9. Quantitative Imaging Center, Department of Radiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. guermazi@bu.edu. 10. Department of Radiology, VA Boston Healthcare System, 1400 VFW Parkway, Boston, MA, 02132, USA. guermazi@bu.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the occurrence of imaging-depicted sports-related injuries (bone, muscle, tendon, and ligament injuries) during the Rio 2016 Summer Paralympic Games. METHODS: Descriptive data on all imaging examinations by using radiography, ultrasonography (US), and MRI were collected and retrospectively analyzed centrally by five musculoskeletal radiologists according to imaging modality, country of origin of the athletes, type of sport, type of disability, and type and location of injury. RESULTS: We report 109 injuries in 4378 athletes. A total of 382 radiologic examinations were performed in 261 athletes, including 118 (31%) radiographic, 22 (6%) US, and 242 (63%) MRI examinations. Para athletes from Africa had the highest utilization rate (20.1%, 67 out of 333). Athletes from Europe underwent the most examinations with 29 radiographic, 12 US, and 66 MRI examinations. The highest utilization rate of imaging modalities by sport was among Judo para athletes (16.7%, 22 out of 132). Most injuries were reported in athletics discipline (37.6%, 41 out of 109). Most injuries were also reported among para athletes with visual impairment (40 injuries, 36.7% of all injuries). Bone stress injuries were most common among para athletes with visual impairment (6 out of 7). Para athletes with visual impairment were also more prone to bone stress injuries than traumatic fractures, unlike para athletes with neurologic and musculoskeletal impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging was used in 6.0% of para athletes. MRI comprised 63% of imaging utilization. Identification of patterns of injuries may help building future prevention programs in elite para athletes. KEY POINTS: • The highest imaging utilization rates were found among para athletes competing in Judo, sitting volleyball, powerlifting, and football. • Utilization of diagnostic imaging at the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games demonstrated similar trends to what was observed at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. • Comparison of the rate of imaging-depicted injuries between Olympic and Paralympic athletes is limited due to inherent differences between the two athlete populations and the manner in which injury risk in the Paralympic athlete varies dependent on impairment type, which is not the case for the Olympic athlete.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the occurrence of imaging-depicted sports-related injuries (bone, muscle, tendon, and ligament injuries) during the Rio 2016 Summer Paralympic Games. METHODS: Descriptive data on all imaging examinations by using radiography, ultrasonography (US), and MRI were collected and retrospectively analyzed centrally by five musculoskeletal radiologists according to imaging modality, country of origin of the athletes, type of sport, type of disability, and type and location of injury. RESULTS: We report 109 injuries in 4378 athletes. A total of 382 radiologic examinations were performed in 261 athletes, including 118 (31%) radiographic, 22 (6%) US, and 242 (63%) MRI examinations. Para athletes from Africa had the highest utilization rate (20.1%, 67 out of 333). Athletes from Europe underwent the most examinations with 29 radiographic, 12 US, and 66 MRI examinations. The highest utilization rate of imaging modalities by sport was among Judo para athletes (16.7%, 22 out of 132). Most injuries were reported in athletics discipline (37.6%, 41 out of 109). Most injuries were also reported among para athletes with visual impairment (40 injuries, 36.7% of all injuries). Bone stress injuries were most common among para athletes with visual impairment (6 out of 7). Para athletes with visual impairment were also more prone to bone stress injuries than traumatic fractures, unlike para athletes with neurologic and musculoskeletal impairments. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging was used in 6.0% of para athletes. MRI comprised 63% of imaging utilization. Identification of patterns of injuries may help building future prevention programs in elite para athletes. KEY POINTS: • The highest imaging utilization rates were found among para athletes competing in Judo, sitting volleyball, powerlifting, and football. • Utilization of diagnostic imaging at the Rio 2016 Paralympic Games demonstrated similar trends to what was observed at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games. • Comparison of the rate of imaging-depicted injuries between Olympic and Paralympic athletes is limited due to inherent differences between the two athlete populations and the manner in which injury risk in the Paralympic athlete varies dependent on impairment type, which is not the case for the Olympic athlete.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Para athletes; Radiographs; Retrospective studies; Ultrasound
Authors: S E Willick; D M Cushman; C A Blauwet; C Emery; N Webborn; W Derman; M Schwellnus; J Stomphorst; P Van de Vliet Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2015-10-10 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Adam S Tenforde; Emily M Brook; Elizabeth Broad; Elizabeth G Matzkin; Heidi Y Yang; Jamie E Collins; Peter W Braun; Cheri A Blauwet Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Wayne Derman; Phoebe Runciman; Esme Jordaan; Martin Schwellnus; Cheri Blauwet; Nick Webborn; Jan Lexell; Peter van de Vliet; James Kissick; Jaap Stomphorst; Young-Hee Lee; Keun-Suh Kim Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: W Derman; M P Schwellnus; E Jordaan; P Runciman; P Van de Vliet; C Blauwet; N Webborn; S Willick; J Stomphorst Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Wayne Derman; Phoebe Runciman; Martin Schwellnus; Esme Jordaan; Cheri Blauwet; Nick Webborn; Jan Lexell; Peter van de Vliet; Yetsa Tuakli-Wosornu; James Kissick; Jaap Stomphorst Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Wayne Derman; Martin Schwellnus; Esme Jordaan; Cheri A Blauwet; Carolyn Emery; Pia Pit-Grosheide; Norma-Angelica Patino Marques; Oriol Martinez-Ferrer; Jaap Stomphorst; Peter Van de Vliet; Nick Webborn; Stuart E Willick Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Tetyana Gorbachova; Ian Amber; Nicholas M Beckmann; D Lee Bennett; Eric Y Chang; Leah Davis; Felix M Gonzalez; Barry G Hansford; B Matthew Howe; Leon Lenchik; Carl S Winalski; Miriam A Bredella Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Mohamad Abdalkader; Ali Guermazi; Lars Engebretsen; Frank W Roemer; Mohamed Jarraya; Daichi Hayashi; Michel D Crema; Asim Z Mian Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 2.362