PDA

View Full Version : Cricket injury prevalence


injuryupdate
24-03-2004, 08:22 PM
Received via email:

I just wanted to get in touch with you to offer you some help in getting to the bottom of the recent epidemic of injuries being sustained by our representative cricketers.

I read recently that the Cricket Australia was to commission research that would help to identify factors predisposing our cricketers, fast bowlers in particular, to injury.

My interest is both clinical and academic. I'm a physiotherapist based in Sydney and I'm currently enrolled in a Musculoskeletal Physiotherapy Masters Program.

An observation of interest is the relatively high incidence of fast bowlers presenting with posterior impingement sydrome that have an os trigonum on xray. Ankle surgeon Martin Sullivan has operated on six Australian members of the Test or one-day side, five of them bowlers. Each time to remove a bone that has an incidence of somewhere between 2.5% and 13% in the general population. The incidence of os trigonum seems disproportionately high in the population of elite fast bowlers, and why is it only in their lead foot/ankle?. It could be hypothesised that the repetitive trauma of the bowling action induces changes in the posterior ankle complex that mimic the appearance of an os trigonum, eg a Shepherd's fracture of the posterior tubercle of the calcaneus, or some other stress related injury.

Additionally, impairments involving the lead foot may also have an impact further along the kinetic chain. For example, in Brett Lee's abdominal strain case, if he is unable to plantarflex his ankle maximally at delivery due to his posterior impingement there may be a resultant loss of transfer in angular momentum from his legs to his trunk. If his compensation strategy involves overactivation of his trunk musculature to ensure shoulder and wrist speed are preserved then he is at much greater risk of sustaining an abdominal muscle strain.

The issue of match scheduling and player workload is another subject of heated debate at the moment. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these ideas. I would also be very interested in being involved in any activities you are undertaking that will help get to the bottom of it all. If the opportunity to be involved does not exist then I would still sincerely appreciate being kept informed of any of your findings.

injuryupdate
04-04-2004, 10:26 PM
Cricket Australia currently spends about $200,000 per year on sports science and sports medicine research. No specific study has looked into posterior impingement of the ankle, although it is an area that perhaps warrants research. This injury is also common in ballet dancers. A paper was presented in Australia in 2000 by the South African physiotherapist which stated that half of the fast bowlers used by South Africa in the 1990s had needed posterior impingement surgery.

With Lee and McGrath out for extended periods after ankle surgery this year, perhaps the time to suggest a study and get the funding to conduct it has come. Any suggestions for prevention?

Monica
20-06-2004, 09:21 PM
I have been thinking, and was wondering if any of this money, or any research, actually goes into past players? I think that assessing any recurring trends in ex-elite players surely will assist our current cricketers.

Analysing patterns of illnesses suffered by those ex-cricketers now (ie. arthritis, and where it occurs) could help to avert future problems for those playing now, ie. comparative case studies of fast bowlers like Dennis Lillee and "Thommo", and using the data to come up with better strategies for the treatments of Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Nathan Bracken. Results of these studies may shed light on medical conditions that lie in store for Pidge, Bing and Bracks, allowing current medicos to begin new treatments and preventative measures/devices.

Surely such opportunities are worth exploration by Cricket Australia?!

(This should be applied in the same ways to any other elite sport where fitness is vital to a player's career longevity: league, union, etc)

Mon

Monica
20-06-2004, 09:23 PM
Injury Update,

How's that for a prevention suggestion?
(I'd like to be mentioned in all the relevant studies... ha ha)

Bob
20-06-2004, 10:11 PM
I think an AFL study showed that ex players had a massively high rate of knee/hip OA and also for knee/hip replacements.

The problem with sports pumping money into prevention and assessing injury rates in ex-players is that the players associations will jump all over the results and demand more moneybe spent on player welfare ie injury prevention.

Given that the best players in AFL/League/cricket have a 12 year life time and the average neville will stick around for 2 years it becomes better value to thrash them around, jab them up each week and say thanks for coming at the end of the career.

Injury Update,

How's that for a prevention suggestion?
(I'd like to be mentioned in all the relevant studies... ha ha)

injuryupdate
21-06-2004, 11:58 AM
I agree that players associations should push for more study into the long-term effects of sport. However, the average member of the population who didn't play elite sport will often have arthritis in their 50s, and very few of the retired players regret their decision to have been a professional athlete, despite any associated health problems they have.

Monica
21-06-2004, 08:49 PM
I don't agree with you, Bob. It all comes back to the old saying 'Prevention is better than cure'. If not to extend and/or better the careers of athletes (which is an obvious objective), results of research help sports medicine practioners to do what they do best - sports medicine. As we know, the field deals with many injuries and situations that general medicine may never be exposed to, so any iniatives that need to be explored, must be through this grant money. If nothing of this nature was ever explored, sports medicine could not grow, and with the opportunities for the area to boom, research must be undertaken. It may sound elementary now, but what do we have to go on with out such studies? The AFL study that you mention may have shown nothing... but it did. In concluded with usable data for sports medicine - usuable with the pretense of research into preventative measures, player welfare/safety, or just into the field itself. I think answers to these types of questions need to be sorted out, lest sports medicine becomes obselete.

The point I'm trying to make is not necessarily all about the players themselves, but also in opening doors to more successful and rewarding medicinal and sporting practices.

I don't believe that sports medicine should be as Bob describes it - more "using" players, than "helping" players. If you could lower (even halve) the percentage of ex-AFL players requiring hip replacements, that would be worth it... right? Of course player association would ask for more money, but this is why research is asked for and undertaken, research funds are provided - to find new and different (and more efficient) ways of getting players back on the park (quicker, ideally) and stopping them from having to come off in the first place!

With the massive sporting culture/sector Australia has, I believe it has become more the place of sports med staff to be constantly looking at options to improve their practices - if it can assist IN ANYWAY AT ALL, this can only help us to improve - sports med cannot be hindered by having any advantage in the form of information

Bob
22-06-2004, 08:04 AM
I agree that I was a bit cynical in my statement, but as you correctly point out sports medicine practioners to do what they do best - sports medicine ie: predominantly diagnose and treat.

An old article from Sport Health sums this up:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/msn/johnorchard/scalpel.htm

The article also touches on karma so maybe a study on karma of sports med practitioners performing preventative measures?

Perhaps this site can set up a research grant to perform this study? (my hand is always open)