LAUSR

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to investigate the nature, management, and outcome of major injuries related to equestrian sports and to define the at-risk groups for serious and life-threatening injuries.MethodsWe analyzed demographic, pre-hospital, clinical, and outcome data from an international population-based prospective trauma database (TraumaRegister DGU®). Patients with major injuries (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥9 points) related to equestrian sports activities were included (January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2012). Clinical and outcome parameters were stratified for four different types of injury mechanisms: fall from horse (FFH), horse-kick (HK), horse crush (HC), and carriage-related accidents (CRA). Participating countries included Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Slovenia, Belgium, Luxembourg, and The Netherlands. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (Version 22, IBM Inc., Armonk, NY).ResultsThe Database identified 122,000 documented patients, of whom 679 were equestrian incidents. Among these, the four major injury mechanisms were: FFH (n = 427), HK (n = 188), HC (n = 34), and the CRA (n = 30). Females were more likely to sustain FFH (75.5%, p < 0.001), leading to head injuries (n = 204, 47.8%) and spinal fractures (n = 109, 25.5%). HK injuries often resulted in facial fractures (29.3%, p < 0.001). Individuals sustaining HC injuries had a high risk for pelvic (32.4%, p < 0.001) and abdominal injuries (35.2%, p < 0.001). In contrast to the FFH cohort, the CRA cohort involved older males (57 ± 13 years), with chest (63.3% p = 0.001), and extremity injuries, resulting in significant injury severity (ISS 20.7 ± 10.6). In the CRA cohort, 16% were in haemorrhagic shock on scene, and also the highest in-hospital mortality (14.8%, p = 0.006) was observed.ConclusionsYoung female riders are at risk from falling, horse-kicks, and crush-injuries. Older males in carriage-related accidents sustained the highest injury severity and mortality rate, and must specifically be targeted by future prevention initiatives.Level of evidenceDescriptive Epidemiologic Study, Level II.