Suchergebnisse

IntroductionMusculoskeletal injuries are common during military and other occupational physical training programs. Employers have a duty of care to reduce employees' injury risk, where females tend to be at greater risk than males. However, quantification of principle co-factors influencing the sex–injury association, and their relative importance, remain poorly defined. Injury risk co-factors were investigated during Royal Air Force (RAF) recruit training to inform the strategic prioritization of mitigation strategies.Material and MethodsA cohort of 1,193 (males n = 990 (83%); females n = 203 (17%)) recruits, undertaking Phase-1 military training, were prospectively monitored for injury occurrence. The primary independent variable was sex, and potential confounders (fitness, smoking, anthropometric measures, education attainment) were assessed pre-training. Generalized linear models were used to assess associations between sex and injury.ResultsIn total, 31% of recruits (28% males; 49% females) presented at least one injury during training. Females had a two-fold greater unadjusted risk of injury during training than males (RR = 1.77; 95% CI 1.49–2.10). After anthropometric, lifestyle and education measures were included in the model, the excess risk decreased by 34%, but the associations continued to be statistically significant. In contrast, when aerobic fitness was adjusted, an inverse association was identified; the injury risk was 40% lower in females compared with males (RR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.42–0.83).ConclusionsPhysical fitness was the most important confounder with respect to differences in males' and females' injury risk, rather than sex alone. Mitigation to reduce this risk should, therefore, focus upon physical training, complemented by healthy lifestyle interventions.

Osteoarthritis is a syndrome affecting a variety of patient profiles. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society working meeting explored the possibility of identifying different patient profiles in osteoarthritis. The risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis include systemic factors (e.g., age, sex, obesity, genetics, race, and bone density) and local biomechanical factors (e.g., obesity, sport, joint injury, and muscle weakness); most also predict disease progression, particularly joint injury, malalignment, and synovitis/effusion. The characterization of patient profiles should help to better orientate research, facilitate trial design, and define which patients are the most likely to benefit from treatment. There are a number of profile candidates. Generalized, polyarticular osteoarthritis and local, monoarticular osteoarthritis appear to be two different profiles; the former is a feature of osteoarthritis co-morbid with inflammation or the metabolic syndrome, while the latter is more typical of post-trauma osteoarthritis, especially in cases with severe malalignment. Other biomechanical factors may also define profiles, such as joint malalignment, loss of meniscal function, and ligament injury. Early- and late-stage osteoarthritis appear as separate profiles, notably in terms of treatment response. Finally, there is evidence that there are two separate profiles related to lesions in the subchondral bone, which may determine benefit from bone-active treatments. Decisions on appropriate therapy should be made considering clinical presentation, underlying pathophysiology, and stage of disease. Identification of patient profiles may lead to more personalized healthcare, with more targeted treatment for osteoarthritis.