Facial protection and head injuries in ice hockey

A systematic review

C. Asplund, S. Bettcher, J. Borchers

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To summarise the best available evidence to determine if facial protection reduces head injury in ice hockey. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2009. Review Methods: Utilising terms: "head injuries," "craniocerebral trauma [MeSH]", "head injuries, closed [MeSH]", head injuries, penetrating [MeSH]", "face mask", "face shield", "visor" and "hockey", 24 articles were identified through our systematic literature search. Of these, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three independent reviewers reviewed the articles. The study results and generated conclusions were extracted and agreed upon. Results: Studies reviewed suggest that facial protection reduces overall head injuries in ice hockey. Facial protection showed a statistically significant (p,0.05) reduction in the number and type of facial injuries. In studies evaluating full facial protection (FFP) versus half facial protection (HFP), FFP offered a significantly higher level of protection against facial injuries and lacerations than HFP (relative risk (RR) 2.31, CI 1.53 to 3.48). There was no significant difference in the rate of concussion (RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54) or neck injury (CI 0.43 to 3.16) between full and partial protection. In those who sustained concussion players with FFP returned to practice or games sooner than players with partial facial protection (PFP) (1.7 sessions, CI 1.32 to 2.18). Conclusions: There is good evidence that FFP reduces the number and risk of overall head and facial injuries in ice hockey compared with PFP and no facial protection. PFP, while not as protective as FFP, appears to offer more risk reduction than no protection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)993-999
Number of pages7
JournalBritish Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume43
Issue number13
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2009

Fingerprint

Facial Injuries
Hockey
Craniocerebral Trauma
Penetrating Head Injuries
Neck Injuries
Closed Head Injuries
Lacerations
Information Storage and Retrieval
Risk Reduction Behavior
Masks
MEDLINE
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Facial protection and head injuries in ice hockey : A systematic review. / Asplund, C.; Bettcher, S.; Borchers, J.

In: British Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 43, No. 13, 01.12.2009, p. 993-999.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Asplund, C. ; Bettcher, S. ; Borchers, J. / Facial protection and head injuries in ice hockey : A systematic review. In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 43, No. 13. pp. 993-999.
@article{39a32c29a8d342b6a907b36bb7dc53ec,
title = "Facial protection and head injuries in ice hockey: A systematic review",
abstract = "Objective: To summarise the best available evidence to determine if facial protection reduces head injury in ice hockey. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2009. Review Methods: Utilising terms: {"}head injuries,{"} {"}craniocerebral trauma [MeSH]{"}, {"}head injuries, closed [MeSH]{"}, head injuries, penetrating [MeSH]{"}, {"}face mask{"}, {"}face shield{"}, {"}visor{"} and {"}hockey{"}, 24 articles were identified through our systematic literature search. Of these, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three independent reviewers reviewed the articles. The study results and generated conclusions were extracted and agreed upon. Results: Studies reviewed suggest that facial protection reduces overall head injuries in ice hockey. Facial protection showed a statistically significant (p,0.05) reduction in the number and type of facial injuries. In studies evaluating full facial protection (FFP) versus half facial protection (HFP), FFP offered a significantly higher level of protection against facial injuries and lacerations than HFP (relative risk (RR) 2.31, CI 1.53 to 3.48). There was no significant difference in the rate of concussion (RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54) or neck injury (CI 0.43 to 3.16) between full and partial protection. In those who sustained concussion players with FFP returned to practice or games sooner than players with partial facial protection (PFP) (1.7 sessions, CI 1.32 to 2.18). Conclusions: There is good evidence that FFP reduces the number and risk of overall head and facial injuries in ice hockey compared with PFP and no facial protection. PFP, while not as protective as FFP, appears to offer more risk reduction than no protection.",
author = "C. Asplund and S. Bettcher and J. Borchers",
year = "2009",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjsm.2009.060152",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "993--999",
journal = "British Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0306-3674",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "13",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Facial protection and head injuries in ice hockey

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Asplund, C.

AU - Bettcher, S.

AU - Borchers, J.

PY - 2009/12/1

Y1 - 2009/12/1

N2 - Objective: To summarise the best available evidence to determine if facial protection reduces head injury in ice hockey. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2009. Review Methods: Utilising terms: "head injuries," "craniocerebral trauma [MeSH]", "head injuries, closed [MeSH]", head injuries, penetrating [MeSH]", "face mask", "face shield", "visor" and "hockey", 24 articles were identified through our systematic literature search. Of these, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three independent reviewers reviewed the articles. The study results and generated conclusions were extracted and agreed upon. Results: Studies reviewed suggest that facial protection reduces overall head injuries in ice hockey. Facial protection showed a statistically significant (p,0.05) reduction in the number and type of facial injuries. In studies evaluating full facial protection (FFP) versus half facial protection (HFP), FFP offered a significantly higher level of protection against facial injuries and lacerations than HFP (relative risk (RR) 2.31, CI 1.53 to 3.48). There was no significant difference in the rate of concussion (RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54) or neck injury (CI 0.43 to 3.16) between full and partial protection. In those who sustained concussion players with FFP returned to practice or games sooner than players with partial facial protection (PFP) (1.7 sessions, CI 1.32 to 2.18). Conclusions: There is good evidence that FFP reduces the number and risk of overall head and facial injuries in ice hockey compared with PFP and no facial protection. PFP, while not as protective as FFP, appears to offer more risk reduction than no protection.

AB - Objective: To summarise the best available evidence to determine if facial protection reduces head injury in ice hockey. Data Sources: MEDLINE and Cochrane databases through January 2009. Review Methods: Utilising terms: "head injuries," "craniocerebral trauma [MeSH]", "head injuries, closed [MeSH]", head injuries, penetrating [MeSH]", "face mask", "face shield", "visor" and "hockey", 24 articles were identified through our systematic literature search. Of these, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Three independent reviewers reviewed the articles. The study results and generated conclusions were extracted and agreed upon. Results: Studies reviewed suggest that facial protection reduces overall head injuries in ice hockey. Facial protection showed a statistically significant (p,0.05) reduction in the number and type of facial injuries. In studies evaluating full facial protection (FFP) versus half facial protection (HFP), FFP offered a significantly higher level of protection against facial injuries and lacerations than HFP (relative risk (RR) 2.31, CI 1.53 to 3.48). There was no significant difference in the rate of concussion (RR 0.97, CI 0.61 to 1.54) or neck injury (CI 0.43 to 3.16) between full and partial protection. In those who sustained concussion players with FFP returned to practice or games sooner than players with partial facial protection (PFP) (1.7 sessions, CI 1.32 to 2.18). Conclusions: There is good evidence that FFP reduces the number and risk of overall head and facial injuries in ice hockey compared with PFP and no facial protection. PFP, while not as protective as FFP, appears to offer more risk reduction than no protection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=73349106804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=73349106804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bjsm.2009.060152

DO - 10.1136/bjsm.2009.060152

M3 - Review article

VL - 43

SP - 993

EP - 999

JO - British Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - British Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0306-3674

IS - 13

ER -