Background In the International Ski Federation (FIS), World Cup (WC) snowboard cross (SBX) and ski cross (SX), the injury incidence in individual qualification runs versus final runs in heats of four athletes is unknown.
Objective To investigate the injury incidence in individual qualification runs versus final runs of SBX and SX.
Methods Injuries were recorded by the FIS injury surveillance system (FIS ISS) through retrospective athlete interviews at the end of each season during four WC seasons (2006–2010). A total of 713 athletes (345 SBX and 368 SX) were interviewed. Time-loss injuries occurring during SBX and SX competitions were included. Injury incidence was expressed as the relative injury rate (per 1000 runs).
Results For SBX, the injury incidence per 1000 runs in finals was 12.1 vs 6.1 in qualifications (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.5). The injury incidence was 12.9 in finals and 4.4 in qualifications (RR 2.9, 95% CI 1.4–6.2) for SBX males and 10.5 vs 9.3 (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5–2.8) for females. For SX, the injury incidence in finals was 12.4 and 9.2 in qualifications (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8–2.3). The injury incidence for SX males was 13.6 in finals vs 8.8 in qualifications (RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.8–3.1) and10.8 vs 9.8 (RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.5–2.6) for females.
Conclusion The injury incidence was significantly higher in final runs compared with qualification runs in SBX for males. For SBX females and in SX, no significant differences were found.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding The Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center has been established at the Norwegian School of Sports Sciences through generous grants from the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Culture, the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, the International Olympic Committee, the Norwegian Olympic Committee & the Confederation of Sport and Norsk Tipping AS. The FIS Injury Surveillance System is supported by the International Ski Federation and has been established through a generous grant from Don Joy Orthotics (DJO).
Competing interests None.
Ethical approval The study was reviewed by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics, South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Norway.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.