Background Hospitalised sport and active recreation injuries can have serious long-term consequences. Despite this, few studies have examined the long-term outcomes of these injuries. The purpose of this study was to establish whether patients hospitalised with orthopaedic sport and active recreation injuries, have returned to their pre-injury levels of health status and function, 12 months post injury and identify factors associated with poor outcomes. The present work was a cohort study with retrospective assessment of pre-injury status and prospective assessment of outcome at 12 months post injury.
Methods Adults with orthopaedic sport and active recreation injuries, captured by the Victorian Orthopaedic Trauma Outcomes Registry were recruited to the study. Pre-injury and 12-month outcomes were assessed using the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale. Differences in pre-injury and post-injury SF-36 scores were examined and demographic, injury, hospital and physical activity variables were assessed for associations with outcome using multivariate linear regression.
Results Of the 324 participants 98% were followed-up at 12 months post injury. At 12 months, participants reported a mean 7.0-point reduction in physical health (95% CI 5.8 to 7.8) and a 2.5-point reduction in mental health (95% CI 1.2 to 3.0), with 58% (95% CI 52.6% to 63.4%) reporting reduced function. Sporting group (p=0.001), Injury Severity Score >15 (p=0.007) and high pre-injury vigorous activity levels (p=0.04), were related to poorer physical health outcomes.
Conclusions At 12 months post injury, most participants reported large reductions in physical health and reduced function. This information is important for furthering our understanding of the burden of sport and active recreation injury and setting priorities for treatment and rehabilitation.
- Public healthhandicapsportsfractureevaluationdisabilitysurveillancehealth services
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval Ethics approval was granted by the hospital ethics committees for the three hospitals that participated in the study.
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.