Injury surveillance in elite field hockey: a pilot study of three different recording techniques

Objective In field hockey, injuries are assessed by various recording techniques leading to a heterogenic collection of poorly comparable injury data. Methods Injury data were prospectively collected at the 2016 Men’s Hockey Junior World Cup using the match injury reports (MIRs), video injury clips provided by the Federation Internationale de Hockey, and daily medical reports (DMRs). A pilot study comparing injury type, mechanism, location on the field, injured body part and overall injury incidence among the different injury recording techniques was performed. Results MIRs and video injury clips were completely available for analysis. DMRs were returned from 11 out of 16 teams (69%). In total, MIRs yielded 28, video analysis 36, and DMRs 56 injuries. Overall injury rate varied between 24.8 and 57.9 injuries per 1000 player match hours. The majority of injuries affected the lower limbs by all three methods (41.7–61.2%) and were mainly caused by having been hit by the ball (20.4–50%) or stick (11.1–28.6%). Reports of concussions during competition were incoherent between MIR (2 cases) and DMR (no cases). The DMR was the only method to record overuse injuries (16.1%), injuries in training (12.5%), and time-loss injuries of one or two days (12.5%) or of three or more days (14.3%). Conclusion Injury data vary substantially between the MIR, DMR and injury video recording technique. Each recording technique revealed specific strengths and limitations. To further advance injury research in field hockey, the strengths of each recording technique should be brought together for a synergistic injury assessment model.