Mihalik_2010_Fenway_Concussion_BW

Page 1

5/14/10

Current State of Concussion Research

What is a concussion? •  A complex pathophysiological process affecXng the brain, induced by traumaXc biomechanical forces

Jason P. Mihalik, PhD, CAT(C), ATC Assistant Professor Department of Exercise and Sport Science The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 7th Annual Sports Related Conference on Concussion & Spine Injury Friday, May 14, 2010 Fenway Park, Boston, MA

Brain injury: a major public health concern

50,000 Deaths

–  Direct blow or impulsive forces transmiZed to head –  Typically results in rapid onset of neurological impairments –  Concussion is a funcXonal—not structural—injury –  May or may not include LOC –  Not idenXfiable on standard imaging (CT, MRI)

(CIS Guidelines, 2009)

Costs associated with TBI •  1.6 to 3.8 million TBI result from sports each year (Langlois et al., 2006 – JHTR) •  $56.3 billion in direct and indirect costs (Langlois et al., 2004 – CDC)

235,000 HospitalizaXons

•  CDC states TBI (specifically its preven5on) must con5nue to be a na5onal priority

1,111,000 Emergency Department Visits ??? Receiving Other Medical Care or No Care (Langlois et al. 2004: CDC/NCIPC)

“I thought mouthguards were designed to prevent concussion”

Can mouthguards prevent concussion? •  Does wearing a mouthguard affect incidence of concussion? –  No significant relaXonship between wearing a MG and incidence of concussion in games or pracXces; type of MG also did not play a role (Momsen et al. UNC Thesis-­‐2004)

•  How effecXve is “brain pad” mouthguard? –  Random clinical trial comparing WIPSS Brain Pad to mouthguard of choice –  Result: no difference in number of concussions between Brain Pad MG and MG of choice (Barbic et al. CJSM-­‐2005)

1


5/14/10

Can mouthguards prevent concussion?

Can mouthguards prevent concussion? •  Custom vs. non-­‐custom mouthguards?

–  No associaXon between mouthguard type and number of concussions in all games and pracXces (Wisniewski et al. Dent Traumatol-­‐2004)

•  Does wearing a mouthguard reduce the neurocogniXve deficits that follow concussion?

–  180 student-­‐athletes were assessed following MTBI –  Use of mouthguard does liZle to reduce the acute severity of neurocogniXve dysfuncXon and onset of symptoms following sports-­‐related head trauma (Mihalik et al. Dent Traumatol-­‐2006)

•  A lack of evidence for mouthguard use prevenXng concussion (Knapik et al. Sports Med-­‐2007) •  Do these findings make sense clinically? Biomechanically? •  Mouthguards are effecXve in reducing maxillofacial and dental trauma and should be worn for that reason

TBI: A mulXfaceted condiXon

Postural stability

Mechanism of injury

Concussion history

CogniXon

Mechanism of injury

•  Accelerometer research •  Football •  Ice hockey

Physical exam

TraumaXc Brain Injury

Injury prevenXon

Symptomatology

• AnXcipaXon • InfracXons

Historical biomechanics research

What kinds of impacts cause concussion?

•  Used animal models: cats, dogs, and monkeys –  Pre-­‐1940, impacts imparted to fixed heads –  1940s marked pendulum hammers and suspended subjects (Denny-­‐Brown & Russell, 1941) –  High-­‐speed cinephotography (Pudenz & Shelden, 1946)

•  Physical model: wax skull/gelaXnous brain –  Developed to eliminate need for animal model –  IniXal descripXon rotaXonal acceleraXon was likely needed to produce corXcal lesions and concussion Mechanism of injury

(Holbourn, 1943 & 1945)

Mechanism of injury

2


5/14/10

Historical biomechanics research •  Ommaya & Gennarelli (1974):

Recent contemporary work •  NFL Concussion CommiZee:

–  Ooen credited for rotaXonal acceleraXon –  Important addiXon: direct head impacts not needed –  No injuries resulted from linear impacts –  2-­‐12 min LOC in 13 monkeys  rotaXonal MOI

–  Laboratory reconstrucXon of concussive injuries captured on video (Pellman et al. 2003) •  Limited number of cases reconstructed (31/182) •  Injuries likely to occur if lin acc exceeds 70-­‐75 g

•  1 never awoke •  2 others died within 1 hour of the impact Mechanism of injury

Mechanism of injury

HIT System •  Helmets fiZed with six single-­‐axis accelerometers, baZery pack, and telemetry unit •  Spring-­‐loaded ensuring contact with head •  Data collected at 1 kHz over 40 ms

HIT System •  Data are date-­‐ and Xme-­‐stamped •  TransmiZed to Sideline Response System •  Measures: –  Impact severity –  LocaXon of impact

Mechanism of injury

Mechanism of injury

Impact Data •  31 total impacts for both sessions •  Between 2.87 g to 97.97 g (mean = 28.95 g)

Mechanism of injury

3


5/14/10

Leading with the head: Is it sXll a problem?

•  Helmets-­‐only pracXce > games •  Top of helmet impacts > all other areas

Mechanism of injury

•  In short: yes •  20% of all impacts occurred to top of head •  Our data suggest that players were more likely to sustain an impact of >80 g to top of the head than: –  Right side (8.5X) –  Leo side (6.54X) –  Front (7.08X) –  Back (2.43X) Mechanism of injury

Neurosurgery, 2007

•  Impacts exceeding theoreXcal thresholds did not result in deficits on clinical measures

Mechanism of injury

•  No relaXonship between severity of head impact and acute clinical outcomes

Mechanism of injury

Neurosurgery, 2007

Neurosurgery, 2007

Case #

Player Position*

1 2

Mechanism of injury

Linear Magnitude (g)

Rotational acceleration (rad/s2)

Impact Location

ΔSymptom Scores†

ΔSOT Composite‡

OL

60.31

5419.18

Front

2

-4.88

ΔANAM Composite‡

RB

60.51

163.35

Top

12

-19.15

-0.20

3

LB

63.84

5923.27

Front

8

-15.68

-0.35

4

WR

66.36

5573.42

Front

23

3.85

5

RB

77.68

3637.48

Top

8

-29.18

0.22

6

DB

84.07

5299.57

Front

7

-2.25

-0.26

7

4.11

0.49

DB

85.10

3274.05

Top

8

LB

94.20

7665.10

Front

9

DL

99.74

8994.40

Front

4

10

OL

100.36

1085.26

Top

0

-2.00

1.01

11§3

LB

102.39

6837.62

Right

30

-60.01

-1.56 -0.76

No baseline data available 27

-4.07

0.14

12

OL

107.07

2811.45

Top

9

-20.57

13§5

RB

108.02

6711.00

Front

2

-17.79

14

DB

109.88

6632.77

Top

16

2.70

15§14

DB

115.50

2303.63

Top

2

-1.49

16

DL

119.23

7974.22

Right

12

2.89

0.12

17

LB

157.50

1020.00

Front

14

0.71

0.42

18

WR

168.71

15397.07

Back

13

7.33

0.79

19

RB

173.22

4762.74

Top

32

8.08

-0.06

Mechanism of injury

4


5/14/10

ImplicaXons to youth athleXcs •  Youth ice hockey players sustain impacts similar to Division I football players –  20 to 23 g, depending on posiXon (Mihalik, Guskiewicz, et al., 2007) –  Of great concern: smaller size and younger age

•  Impacts same as college football players •  Top of head hits problemaXc in youth hockey

•  4x more impacts in games (~2700 vs. ~650) •  Further quesXon proposed injury thresholds (Pellman et al., 2003)

Mechanism of injury

Mechanism of injury

JSET, 2008

Injury prevenXon: AnXcipaXon

Injury prevenXon: AnXcipaXon

•  AnXcipated collisions < unanXcipated collisions •  ImplicaXons for collision sports Injury prevenXon

Injury prevenXon

Pediatrics, 2010 (In Press)

Teaching AnXcipaXon

Injury prevenXon: InfracXon

•  Coaching techniques –  PracXce: game-­‐related contact drills •  Small games drills

Checking from behind

Injury prevenXon

Elbowing/head contact

5


5/14/10

Head impact biomechanics

•  Elbowing, head contact, high sXcking > legal •  Coaches, players, and officials share a responsibility for injury prevenXon

•  •  •  •  •

Effect of special teams vs. offense and defense Cervical muscle strength Player aggression ConXnued descripXve exploraXon ConXnued injury study

•  Inclusion of different populaXons: –  Female, lacrosse, military –  Neuroimaging at all levels

Injury prevenXon

MSSE, 2010 (In Press)

“Should my child rest or go to school?” •  95 concussed student athletes categorized into 5 groups: –  No school or exercise acXvity –  School acXvity only –  School acXvity and light acXvity at home (i.e. mowing lawn, slow jogging) –  School and sports pracXce –  School and sports game

•  Neuropsychological tesXng and symptom status were analyzed

“Should my child go to school?” Managing FuncXonal Academic Deficits Neuropsychological Deficit

Functional School Problem

Management Strategy

Short focus on lecture, classwork, homework “Working” Memory

Holding instructions in mind, reading comprehension, math calculation, writing

Repetition, written instructions, use of calculator, short reading passages

Retaining new information, accessing learned info when needed

Smaller chunks to learn, recognition cues

Processing Speed

Keep pace with work demand, process verbal information effectively

Extended time, slow down verbal info, comprehensionchecking

Fatigue

Decreased arousal/ activation to engage basic attention, working memory

Memory Consolidation/ Retrieval

Rest or no rest? •  Highest level of acXvity following concussion resulted in worse outcomes •  Intermediate levels of acXvity had the best outcomes (But also likely the least severely injured) •  Absolute rest resulted in worse outcomes than intermediate levels of ac5vity (Majerske, Mihalik et al. JAT-­‐2008)

•  Is there a potenXal for Xmed exerXon or rehabilitaXon strategies? Area for future research

Can we use technology to assess and rehabilitate concussion? •  Theory: virtual reality environments provide a mechanism to sXmulate, but not endanger, athletes with concussion •  Different types of VR exist –  Cave AutomaXc Virtual Environment (CAVE) –  Head-­‐mount display* –  Stereo projecXon

6


5/14/10

Balance Error Scoring System in Virtual Reality

Virtual Reality

Mihalik et al. J Sport Rehab -­‐ 2008

Does the weight of the HMD affect balance? –  Main finding: it does not

Virtual Reality and RehabilitaXon

(Mihalik et al., J Sport Rehab -­‐ 2008)

Virtual reality and rehabilitaXon •  AffiliaXons with EA Sports •  Nintendo WiiFit –  ImplemenXng postural control as a part of a compliant dual task paradigm

Injury rehabilitaXon

7


5/14/10

What is to come •  EducaXon •  EducaXon •  EducaXon –  Coaching iniXaXves –  Parental educaXon –  Player development –  Official educaXonals intervenXons –  Physician awareness –  CAT(C)/ATC training

Concluding thoughts… •  Clinicians must conXnue to ask quesXons •  Researchers must strive to answer RQs •  There is sXll much unknown about concussion •  Concussion management is not an auto-­‐pilot funcXon •  Litmus tests to detect injury do not exist

Acknowledgments

Jason P. Mihalik, PhD, CAT(C), ATC Matthew A. Gfeller Sport-Related Traumatic Brain Injury Research Center The University of North Carolina E-mail: jmihalik@email.unc.edu Office: 919.843.2014 Lab: 919.962.0409 Fax: 919.962.0489

8


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.