MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1580/1080-6032(1999)010[0218:wiroap]2.3.co;2

Медицинская библиотека · Wilderness & environmental medicine · 1999

Windsurfing injuries: results of a paper- and Internet-based survey.

Nathanson A T, Reinert S E

СтатьяПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVE

To describe the frequency, pattern, and mechanism of windsurfing injuries.

METHODS

A 24-question multiple-choice paper-based survey was distributed to windsurfers at beaches in the United States and the Dominican Republic, and an identical survey was placed on the Internet.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety-four surveys in all were completed describing 339 acute and 150 chronic injuries. The foot, knee, chest wall, and ankle were the most commonly injured body parts. Sprains (26.3%) were most common, followed by lacerations (21.2%), contusions (16.2%), and fractures (14.2%). Direct injury from the windsurfing apparatus resulted in 64.5% of the acute injuries, and 12% were caused by contact with the ocean floor. The maneuvers most likely to result in injury were jumping, high-speed falls, and catapult falls. There was no statistically significant difference between the Internet- and paper-based surveys regarding anatomic distribution of injuries or type of injury. The incidence of injuries requiring medical care in study participants was estimated to be one injury per 1000 days sailed.

CONCLUSIONS

Sprains, lacerations, and contusions to the lower extremity are the most common windsurfing injuries. Equipment modifications are suggested that may decrease the risk of injury.

Для цитирования: Nathanson A T, Reinert S E. Windsurfing injuries: results of a paper- and Internet-based survey.. Wilderness & environmental medicine. 1999. DOI: 10.1580/1080-6032(1999)010[0218:wiroap]2.3.co;2.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.