A review of risk factors for hamstring injury in soccer: a biomechanical approach

The aim has been to review the literature about the risk factors of hamstring injury in soccer from a biomechanical point of view. METHODOLOGY. Data bases of bibliography references were Medline, Scopus and SportDiscuss. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. Many prospective studies have shown that the previous injury is the greatest risk factor of sustaining the injury. However the primary causes of the injury are unclear in soccer. A lack of hamstring flexibility has been one of the main injury risk factors with controversies on the results. Imbalance of isokinetic force is a risk factor but electrical coactivation of all muscles participating during knee flexion and extension are unknown in football. While the importance of lumbopelvic-hamstrings muscles synchronization during running seems to be crucial for understanding the risk of injury, no research has been developed in this topic in football. CONCLUSIONS. More research using new data recording procedures as Dynamic Scanners, Surface EMG, Inverse Dynamic Analysis are needed. The analysis of more specific movements as running, kicking or jumping is clearly required. Managers, coaches, physical trainers, physiotherapists, sport physicians and researchers should work together in order to improve the injury prevention and rehabilitation programs of football players. Key Words: sports biomechanics, soccer, hamstring injury, risk factors

No evidence for association of ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene T2119C and C3161G amino acid substitution variants with risk of breast cancer

Background There is evidence that certain mutations in the double-strand break repair pathway ataxia-telangiectasia mutated gene act in a dominant-negative manner to increase the risk of breast cancer. There are also some reports to suggest that the amino acid substitution variants T2119C Ser707Pro and C3161G Pro1054Arg may be associated with breast cancer risk. We investigate the breast cancer risk associated with these two nonconservative amino acid substitution variants using a large Australian population-based case–control study. Methods The polymorphisms were genotyped in more than 1300 cases and 600 controls using 5' exonuclease assays. Case–control analyses and genotype distributions were compared by logistic regression. Results The 2119C variant was rare, occurring at frequencies of 1.4 and 1.3% in cases and controls, respectively (P = 0.8). There was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.8), and the TC genotype was not associated with increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.59–1.97, P = 0.8). Similarly, the 3161G variant was no more common in cases than in controls (2.9% versus 2.2%, P = 0.2), there was no difference in genotype distribution between cases and controls (P = 0.1), and the CG genotype was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 0.85–1.98, P = 0.2). This lack of evidence for an association persisted within groups defined by the family history of breast cancer or by age. Conclusion The 2119C and 3161G amino acid substitution variants are not associated with moderate or high risks of breast cancer in Australian women.