indoor rock climbing: who gets injured?
In order to determine the frequency of excessive use of injuries by indoor climbers, the common parts of such injuries, and factors that affect the likelihood that climbers will suffer excessive use damage while climbing indoors. Method—
Using the semi-supervised questionnaire, 295 viewers and competitors were investigated for excessive use of injuries in the center.
The World Rock Climbing Championships held in Birmingham in December 5, 1999.
Statistical analysis included simple cross-lists, calculation of ratio and multiple logistic regression to explore the effects of several factors at the same time. Results—
About 44% of respondents suffered over-use injuries and 19% were injured on more than one site.
The most common part of the injury is the finger.
The single variable analysis shows that the probability of climbing damage in men is higher (
Leading Grade: E6, E1-E3, E4-E5, E6;
Stone holding grade: 4c, 5a-5c, 6a-7a, 7a;
In multiple regression, some of these categories must be merged because there are fewer numbers in some cells.
Survey results of 295 climbers, 131 (44%)
Suffered excessive use damage at some point; 57 (19%)
Excessive use injuries have been suffered in more than one location, and many people have been injured many times, especially with their fingers.
This is the most common part of the injury, which is 94 (32%)
However, a large number of respondents described other upper limb injuries.
Six respondents suffered knee injuries and four back injuries, which were not characterized by climbing injuries.
Table 1 shows the analysis results of possible risk factors for injury.
Among the factors explored, all factors except age were statistically associated with the probability that climbers would suffer excessive use injury while climbing indoors.
View this table: View inline View pop-up table 1 risk factors for injuries during indoor rock climbing: single variable results we found injury risk trends related to the following: preferred activity (
Leading> Holding Stone> top roping);
Leading and holding stones (
Harder, the more risk of injury);
Number of years of climbing (
Longer, more damage);
And visit every year.
The trend of Lead grade is most obvious.
If there is such a sequence, the odds change for different categories is almost always linear, which is reflected in the difference between the trend 2 _ 2 and the trend and the total 2 _ 2.
Table 2 gives the results of multivariate analysis.
Using all of the above important individual risk factors, many different models have been explored.
There are many complex relationships between these factors.
For example, there are relatively few women climbing in the most difficult places, and those who like to lead the climbers usually carry out more difficult climbing.
Therefore, many of these factors can be confused with each other, and the \"best set\" for determining these factors may be somewhat arbitrary.
View this table: View inline View pop-up table 2 risk factors for injuries during indoor rock climbing: Nevertheless, two of the three factors that appear significant in the final model are obvious.
The number of years of climbing is an obvious factor as we are considering cumulative damage and so is the lead level.
The unexpected factors included here are preferred activities (
A combination of holding stones and leading).
It is worth noting that the first model we tried included all the personal factors in Table 1 other than age and Stone holding grade.
This gives a 2 x log possibility of 166.
Seven independent variables are included.
The final model does not include non-
Important variables and some other categories are merged, and the possibility of logging is increased to 170.
01, but there are three fewer variables included.
The first point of discussion about these findings is the representation of the subjects included in the study, so to what extent we can generalize the results outside of the direct sample.
This is a difficult problem: there is no population List of climbers that can be used as a sampling frame, not to mention only those who climb indoors.
Therefore, it is impossible to say that the obtained sample represents the group of indoor climbers.
At the same time, it is difficult to come up with any other method to get a large number of indoor climbers covering a wide range of abilities and experiences to be questioned in such a short period of time.
Since our sample is not random, it is not appropriate to determine the overall frequency of injury to a large extent, because the proportion of the sample is distinguished by gender, Lead grade, etc, we may understand why the \"population\" of indoor climbers may be completely unrepresentative.
However, if we consider the risk of injury for different subcategories of the sample, this criticism does not apply, or only to a lesser extent.
We can reasonably suggest the relative risk of injury to men (
Compared to women)
Or those who climb in the most difficult places
Compared with the climbers in the lower grades)
May be quite close to the \"real\" risk.
Although our sample may not contain the \"real\" population ratio of male climbers or the \"real\" ratio of the most difficult climbers, this is still the case.
An additional factor that we cannot properly consider is the interaction effect between gender and leadership hierarchy, simply because the data set is not large enough.
Reaction variable \"Have you ever suffered over-use damage?
\"We are not allowed to calculate the incidence or prevalence rate.
In the context of how and where the questionnaire was issued, it is not feasible to ask each respondent how much damage he suffered during his indoor climbing career (
The problem of recall deviation is obvious)
, Or distinguish between recurrence and new injuries.
If we investigate the incidence of injuries in a shorter period of time
For example, the past 12 months
The purpose of this study is that these numbers may be so low that it is impossible to explore the risk factors.
An appropriate survey of the incidence will require a broader study than the current time.
In general, prevalence is used to reflect the burden of chronic diseases in the population.
Excessive use injury is acute, so only a small number of injured respondents are injured when asking questions, thus creating the same problem in terms of sample size as measured incidence.
In addition, most of the respondents in the competency category were participating in the event, and injuries were unlikely at that time.
The following points are worth commenting on when considering the results of the multivariate survey.
Sex disappears as an independent predictor, presumably because of its relationship with the leadership hierarchy.
In some ways, this level of lead and the number of years up are still fairly obvious independent predictors, but it is interesting that the number of visits per year is not an independent predictor.
This must be because of its relationship with the leading level: the reason why people are able to climb hard is both internal and often trained.
However, if the climber climbs at a relatively low level, frequent Wall removal is unlikely to cause excessive use damage, because the physical strain involved is bound to be less than those who climb at a high level.
The factors we did not anticipate in the final model were \"preferred activities \".
Independent of the ability of climbers, the holding of stones and the lead are more likely to cause injuries than the top rope.
We believe that these factors represent the growing commitment of the climbers, and therefore there is a potential for greater pressure.
However, it is surprising that both the leading rank and preferred activity in the final model have features.
One may ask whether any suggestions to reduce the risk of injury can be made based on these findings.
In practice, the answer must be a firm \"no \".
It doesn\'t make sense to advise people not to be so engaged in activities, or to just climb easier routes, just as it would suggest climbers should retire after 10 years.
Perhaps the best way to do this is to provide the results of this study and other studies extensively at expert publishers so that climbers can understand how common these injuries are, their risk factors, from other studies, excessive use of symptoms and signs of injury.
Thanks to BMC for the help and collaboration with this study, we were able to participate in the 99 year climbing event.
Diagnosis, management and prevention of climbing injury.
Orthopedic and Sports Medicine 19982.
Jose Rooks MD, Johnston RB, Ensol CD, etc.
Injury patterns for recreational rock climbers.
Med1995, American Sports Association; 25:683–5.
Avocado, avocado BA, RA.
Artificial needs and consequences of rock climbing. J Hand Surg [Am]1992; 17:200–5.
Howard Johnson L-M, Noakes TD.
Sports rock climbers suffered injuries to their elbows, forearm, wrists and hands.
Clin J Sport Med1996; 6:196–203.
OpenUrlPubMedWeb of science
Soft tissue injury of extreme climbers.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full TextPreston D.
Climbing to new heights. Rooks MD.
Rock climbing was injured. Sport Med1997; 23; 261–70.
OpenUrlPubMed Bollen SR.
The climber was injured in the A2 pulley. J Hand Surg [Br]1990; 15:268–70.
Steyers CM. jebson PJL.
Climbing hand injury: achieve the right treatment.
Doctor and sports doctor25:54–63.
Old Borun, Gunson CK.
Hand injury in the climber competition
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text banner Bannister P, cultivated.
Upper limb injury associated with rock climbing.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text Bollen SR.
Upper limb injury for elite rock climbers
Surgical department of Jr coredinb1990; 35(suppl):18–20. OpenUrl↵Limb D.
British climbing wall was injured.
Sports projects; 29:168–70.