Incidence and magnitude of head impacts experienced by male adolescent rugby players: A two-season comparison

Introduction. In recent years there has been an increase in public and media awareness regarding the safety and brain health of players either after a concussion or after long-term participation in rugby union. Because of the nature of rugby, players are exposed to repeated collisions which may or may not result in a concussion. These impacts involve both linear and rotational acceleration. At present there is sparse research investigating the role of collisions in rugby on the brain health of junior rugby players. Methods. Forty U16 male rugby players aged 14-16 years completed pre-season and post-season assessment which included: (i) advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, (ii) neurocognitive testing, (iii) health history questionnaire, (iv) motor control questionnaire. Participants wore instrumented mouthguards during their club and school season (recording collisions 8g and above) for all games and contact trainings. The collisions were video verified and coded according to relevant descriptors. Results. Magnitude and incidence data for the male cohort, across two seasons, can be presented at this time. Average total incidence per team was 14.19-16.25 impacts at training and 71.95-105.4 impacts at games. Incidence range per player was 12 to 496 impacts experienced per season, with an average of 107.61. Average peak linear acceleration (PLA) was 18.15-19.17 at training and 20.08-20.63 at games. Magnitude range per player was 13.8-28.2 g, with an average of 19.48. Player loading influenced incidence rate and maximum PLA, but not average PLA. Wider study results, expected in early 2024, will incorporate results from neuro-cognitive testing, motor control questionnaires, and MRI scans. Conclusions. The study highlights the need for objective data to measure head impact exposure in rugby union, especially at the junior level. Monitoring head impact loading is crucial for rugby safety and may help to establish a distinction between kinematics of concussive and non-concussive injury

User perception and acceptance of softshell headgear amongst youth rugby players

This study investigated the attitudes, preferences, motivations and acceptance of softshell headgear among youth rugby players. Female and male rugby players (ages 13-17) were surveyed regarding headgear use during training and matches, discontinuation reasons, preferred brands, motivations for use, and reasons for non-use. We assessed confidence without headgear, head injuries, familiarity with specifications, and awareness of benefits/risks. Most (86%) didn't wear headgear during training; 74.4% abstained in matches. Reasons for discontinuation included discomfort and perceived ineffectiveness. Parental advice (78%) and injury protection (52%) drove headgear use. Non-use reasons: lack of ventilation (67%), bulkiness (50%), discomfort (44%), non-compulsory use (36%), and lack of consideration (36%). 44.2% believed headgear protects against head injuries; 30.2% were unsure. The results of this study indicate a range of attitudes among youth rugby players towards the use of headgear. Understanding their motivations and concerns is crucial for improving player safety. While some players see headgear as a valuable protective measure, others are deterred by factors such as discomfort and lack of ventilation. There is a need for greater awareness and education about headgear benefits and risks among rugby players, potential modifications to headgear design to enhance comfort and ventilation should be explored and further research conducted to explore the benefits that headgear has for head impact protection

User perception and acceptance of softshell headgear amongst youth rugby players

Introduction. This study investigated the attitudes of youth rugby players towards the use of protective softshell headgear during rugby training and matches. The primary objective was to gain insights into their preferences and concerns regarding headgear. The innovative aspect of this research lies in its focus on youth rugby players and their perceptions of headgear, which is one of the crucial aspects of player safety. Methods. A survey was administered to 43 high school-level (Years 9-13) rugby players (females aged 13-17 and males aged 14-16 years). The survey aimed to assess players’ attitudes towards headgear. The participants were asked questions regarding their use of headgear during training sessions and matches, previous use of headgear, reasons for discontinuing its use, and headgear brands they have worn. Additionally, those who wore headgear were asked about their motivations for using it, while those who did not wear headgear were questioned about their reasons for not doing so. Participants' confidence in their head protection without headgear, head injuries experienced, familiarity with headgear specifications, and awareness of information about headgear benefits and risks were also examined. Results. Among the participants, the majority (37 players), did not wear headgear during training sessions, with 3 using it occasionally and 3 using it consistently. In matches, 32 did not wear headgear, 3 used it occasionally, and 8 used it consistently. Of those who previously wore headgear but stopped, reasons included discomfort, a perception that headgear was ineffective, and that headgear restricted mobility. Various brands of headgear were reported to be used, CCC (Canterbury of New Zealand), not World Rugby Approved, was the most common (12) followed by NPro (World Rugby Approved) (9). For those who wore headgear at any stage, the primary reasons (chosen from any of ten options) included parental advice (78%) and protection from head injuries (52%). The main reasons for not wearing headgear were lack of ventilation (67%), headgear was bulky/annoying (50%), general discomfort (44%), and headgear use not being compulsory (36%). Additionally, 19 participants believed that headgear offers protection against potential head injuries, 13 were unsure, and 11 believed that it did not offer protection. Conclusions. The results of this study indicate a range of attitudes among youth rugby players towards the use of headgear. Understanding their motivations and concerns is crucial for improving player safety. While some players see headgear as a valuable protective measure, others are deterred by factors such as discomfort and lack of ventilation. There is a need for greater awareness and education about headgear benefits and risks among rugby players, potential modifications to headgear design to enhance comfort and ventilation should be explored

Long noncoding RNA (lincRNA), a new paradigm in gene expression control

Long intergenic non-coding RNAs (lincRNAs) are defined as RNA transcripts that are longer than 200 nucleotides. By definition, these RNAs must not have open reading frames that encode proteins. Many of these transcripts are encoded by RNA polymerase II, are spliced, and are poly-adenylated. This final fact indicates that there is a trove of information about lincRNAs in databases such as the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), which is a repository for RNAseq and microarray data. Recent experiments indicate that there are upwards of 15,000 lincRNAs encoded by the human genome. The term "intergenic" refers to the identification of these transcripts from regions of the genome that do not contain protein-encoding genes. These regions coincide with what was once labeled as the "junk DNA" portions of our genomes, which, upon careful examination by whole genome RNA sequencing experiments, clearly encode RNA transcripts. LincRNAs also contain promoter- or enhancer-associated RNAs that are gene proximal and can be either in the sense or antisense orientation, relative to the protein-coding gene with which they are associated. In this review, we describe the functions of lincRNAs playing roles in biological processes such as gene expression control, scaffold formation, and epigenetic control