Wrist Injuries in Climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Acute and chronic injuries to the wrist are among the most common sport-related complaints of climbing athletes but have not been extensively evaluated in this population. Therefore, it is important to categorize climbing injuries to the wrist, analyze risk factors, and assess treatment outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate the distribution, outcomes, and influencing factors of wrist injuries in climbers. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Climbing athletes with wrist injuries who presented to our specialized sports medical center over the course of 4 years (2017-2020) were selected. All had prospectively completed questionnaires including their climbing-specific background (years of training, climbing level, training methods, etc). Injuries were analyzed (International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation [UIAA] grade and diagnosis), and treatment methods and outcomes were retrospectively assessed with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Parameters included the climbing score, visual analog scale for pain score, Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) score, and shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH) score including the sport component (DASH–Sport) score before and after treatment as well as time to return to climbing. Results: A total of 69 patients (25 female, 44 male) with 78 wrist injuries were identified and analyzed. Of these, 7 injuries were bilateral, occurring at the same time, and 2 injuries were independent reinjuries to either the same or the contralateral side. In addition, 24 injuries (30.8%) were acute, while 54 (69.2%) were chronic. Overall, 2 injuries had a UIAA grade of 3; all others had a UIAA grade of 2. The most frequent injuries were synovitis of the ulnocarpal recess, ulnar impaction, bone marrow edema of the lunate, wrist sprains (joint capsular pain with stress, with no pathological finding on magnetic resonance imaging), and wrist ganglion cysts. Nonoperative treatment was performed for 61 of the injuries, while 17 were treated surgically. In 51 cases (65.4%), injuries healed without consequences; in 27 cases (34.6%), discomfort remained. The visual analog scale pain score decreased from 4.8 ± 1.9 before treatment to 0.7 ± 1.0 after treatment ( P < .001), the PRWE score decreased from 53.6 ± 24.9 to 10.3 ± 13.1 ( P < .001), the QuickDASH score improved from 53.0 ± 16.6 to 20.0 ± 20.2 ( P < .001), and the DASH–Sport score improved from 82.0 ± 16.1 to 38.1 ± 23.5 ( P < .001). The climbing score improved from 2.5 ± 1.1 to 4.3 ± 1.0 points ( P < .001). The patient-reported number of days with pain was negatively correlated with changes in the PRWE score ( r = −0.351; P < .001), QuickDASH score ( r = −0.316; P = .007), and climbing score ( r = −0.264; P = .025) as well as the number of days without climbing ( r = −0.266; P = .025). The number of days without climbing was positively correlated with changes in the PRWE score ( r = 0.369; P < .001). Conclusion: Wrist injuries in climbers constituted a diverse set of diagnoses. Ulnar-sided injuries were most common, and many patients had >1 diagnosis. Outcomes for all treatment methods (surgery and nonoperative care) were favorable, but approximately one-third of climbers had persistent wrist discomfort after treatment, underscoring the need for accurate diagnoses and acute and expert care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".