June 19, 2024

Injuries in functional fitness: An updated systematic review #Infographic

Functional physical fitness, also known as CrossFit ® has aroused the interest of scientists due to concerns over the potential injury threat. Hence, just recently we observed a considerable boost in original articles related to injuries in functional fitness.
In our current organized review1, in addition to the upgrade, we expanded the scope of previous evaluations on injuries in functional physical fitness, with brand-new analyses such as system, type, severity and treatment of injuries, as well as involved factors (experience and frequency of training, gender, age, participation in competitions, training attributes and the practice of other workouts and sports). With a detailed view of the definition of injury, we discovered 26 research studies considering the period from 2017 to November 2020.

Lab of Sport and Exercise Psychology (Lape) of the Santa Catarina State University (Udesc)– Florianópolis (SC), Brazil.
Graduate Program in Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Mato Grosso (UFMT), Cuiabá, Brazil.

What did we find?
A lot of studies utilized a retrospective research study style and the meaning of injury used by the authors varied in between them, however the definition most utilized was that supplied by Weisenthal et al. (2014 )3, which specifies injury as “Any muscle, tendon, bone, joint or ligament injury suffered during CrossFit that led to a consultation with a medical professional or health professional and caused you to stop or minimize your normal physical activity, your common involvement in CrossFit, or made you have surgical treatment “.
The primary variables reported were occurrence (%), body place and elements connected with injuries. The average occurrence of musculoskeletal injuries was 32.8%, varying from 2.4 to 60.6%. A lot of research studies reported the incidence of injuries per 1000 hours of practical fitness training, ranging from 0.21 to 36 injuries.
Just five studies described the type of medical diagnosis of the injuries, magnetic resonance imaging was the most regular, followed by ultrasound and calculated tomography images. Shoulders, back spine and knees were the body regions identified as the most impacted by the injuries provided in the included studies. Muscle, ligament/tendon and joint injuries were the type of injuries most typically provided by specialists of practical fitness.
In order to determine which aspects could be connected with the development of injuries during and/or due to the practice of functional fitness, several variables were investigated. Experience with practical fitness has actually been included in a great deal of studies, the majority of which have revealed that more knowledgeable individuals reported more injuries. Other variables such as sex, previous injuries, age, frequency of weekly training and practice of other kinds of exercise also showed association with injuries, however there was no consensus in the results found in view of the distinctions methodologies of the research studies.
The seriousness of injuries was reported in just 4 studies, most of which were mild to moderate in severity. Regarding treatment, the occurrence of injuries that needed to be treated varied between 9.2% and 71.8% in the research studies. Physiotherapy, injections, medications and surgical interventions were the types of treatment most utilized.
It is very important to highlight that the majority of the research studies consisted of in this evaluation had moderate methodological quality and all of them were considered to be at high threat of predisposition.
The outcomes provided in this infographic have the prospective to sum up the results of the most recent research studies on injuries in functional fitness, as it provides information about the period, location and sample analyzed, terms utilized, as well as definition of the injury utilized in the research studies, medical diagnosis, prevalence (%), incidence (per 1000 hours of training), severity, type, body location, associated factors and treatment. Understanding the characteristics of the injuries reported by the studies is essential in order to establish a preventive method in practice of functional fitness.
Authors and Affiliations:
Fábio Hech Dominski1, Thais Cristina Siqueira1, Ruy Luiz Lorenzetti Branco1, Ramires Alsamir Tibana2, Alexandro Andrade1
Correspondence to:
Dr Fábio Hech Dominski, Laboratory of Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Santa Catarina State University, Brazil. [email protected]

References:

( Visited 3,231 times, 41 gos to today).

Dominski FH, Siqueira TC, Tibana RA, Andrade A. Injuries in functional physical fitness: An updated organized review. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2021
Dominski, F. H., Siqueira, T. C., Serafim, T. T., & & Andrade, A. (2018 ). Injury profile in CrossFit practitioners: organized evaluation. Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, 25( 2 ), 229-239.
Weisenthal BM, Beck CA, Maloney MD, DeHaven KE, Giordano BD. Orthop J Sports Med.

In our recent systematic review1, in addition to the upgrade, we broadened the scope of previous evaluations on injuries in practical physical fitness, with new analyses such as system, type, seriousness and treatment of injuries, as well as associated aspects (experience and frequency of training, gender, age, participation in competitions, training qualities and the practice of other workouts and sports). Many studies reported the occurrence of injuries per 1000 hours of functional fitness training, varying from 0.21 to 36 injuries.
Muscle, ligament/tendon and joint injuries were the type of injuries most typically provided by professionals of practical physical fitness.
Experience with practical physical fitness has been consisted of in a large number of research studies, most of which have shown that more knowledgeable people reported more injuries. Other variables such as sex, previous injuries, age, frequency of weekly training and practice of other types of exercise likewise revealed association with injuries, however there was no consensus in the results discovered in view of the distinctions approaches of the studies.

Completing interests: None declared.