In adolescent ice hockey, body checking experience doesn’t increase the risk for concussion or injury, according to a new study.
Ice Hockey Checking Does NOT Raise Concussion Risk
1 min read Premium comments
Secondary#concussion#bodychecking#icehockey
The study, “No association found between body checking experience and injury or concussion rates in adolescent ice hockey players,” was published online on February 15, 2022, in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.
The researchers compared rates of injury and concussion among young (ages 13-14 years) ice hockey players playing in leagues that allowed body checking, but who have a varying number of years of body checking experience.
In the 5-year longitudinal cohort, years of body checking experience were classified based on national and local body checking policy. All ice hockey game-related injuries were recorded and players with a suspected concussion were referred to a study sport medicine physician.
Overall, there were 1,647 players and 1,842 player-seasons. No significant differences were found in the adjusted Injury and Concussion Incidence Rate Ratios (IRR) for game-related injury for players with 1 year (IRR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.45) or 2+ years (IRR = 1:16; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.84) body checking experience.
In addition, there were no differences found in the rates of concussion for players with 1 year (IRR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.42) or 2+ years (IRR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.25) body checking experience.
“Among ice hockey players aged 13-14 years participating in leagues permitting body checking, the adjusted rates of all injury and concussion were not significantly different between those that had body checking experience and those that did not. Based on these findings, no association was found between body checking experience and rates of injury or concussion specifically in adolescent ice hockey,” the researchers wrote.
Study authors include Paul Eliason, Brent E. Hagel, Luz Palacios-Derflingher, Vineetha Warriyar, Stephen Bonfield, Amanda Marie Black and Carolyn Emery of the University of Calgary in Canada. Shelina Babul of the University of British Columbia, Martin Mrazik and Constance Lebrun of the University of Alberta were also included in the study.
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.