Boffin wants Berrick's headgear call explored
Jamie Pandaram
June 3, 2011
DURBAN: A biomechanics expert who completed a study for the IRB and Australian Rugby Union on the effectiveness of headgear in preventing concussion believes Berrick Barnes's calls for thicker protection might have merit.
Dr Andrew McIntosh produced a report in 2009 which concluded that standard headgear allowed by the IRB made no difference to concussion rates when compared with players who wore no headgear at all.
McIntosh told the Herald that his study by no means suggested that thicker, modified headgear was also ineffective in preventing concussion, which until now has been a common misconception arising out of his report. The IRB has misread it, too.
Advertisement: Story continues below
The report monitored more than 4000 players with roughly a third each assigned to play without headgear, with standard headgear, and with headgear with extra padding.
Those asked to wear the thicker headgear, however, found it uncomfortable and refused to don the apparel throughout the two-year study. Too few participants meant a conclusive call could not be drawn.
''There weren't enough people - it is what is called an 'underpowered' study,'' McIntosh said. ''There was no difference when wearing standard headgear to no headgear at all, but a very big reduction when wearing the modified headgear. However, it was not statistically significant [due to the low number of participants].
''If that trend had continued and we had sampled more people we would have had a statistically significant reduction [in concussion].''
The revelation has enormous ramifications for the IRB's governing laws. For the past two years they have cited McIntosh's report as proof that headgear does not prevent concussion. That is true only of the headgear they allow, which can be no more than one centimetre thick.
''The study showed the potential, with thicker headgear, to reduce the severity of head injuries,'' McIntosh said. ''It follows standard biometrics. If you have slightly thicker matter, you can reduce the impact of what people can tolerate.''
Now the debate centres on whether the IRB should allow thicker headgear. A spokesman said: ''The IRB has never promoted the wearing of padded headgear as a measure to reduce the chances of concussion. The wearing of approved padded headgear has been sanctioned on the basis that it should not cause harm or injury to anyone on the field of play.
''Education is key and the IRB takes the area of concussion very seriously. There are defined guidelines governing diagnosis and return-to-play management.
''It is important that players understand that they should not take risks with concussion or multiple concussions and always seek medical advice.''
The original study, published in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, concluded: ''Padded headgear does not reduce the rate of head injury or concussion. The low compliance rates are a limitation. Although individuals may choose to wear padded headgear, the routine or mandatory use of protective headgear cannot be recommended.''
McIntosh said more research needed to be done before dismissing the idea that headgear was ineffective in preventing concussion. He has already approached sporting bodies about further studies.
Wallabies and Waratahs playmaker Barnes believes extra padding around the temple and the back of the head will help prevent concussion and the onset of footballer's migraine. Both have plagued him throughout his career.
Barnes, who might design a new style of headgear with his sponsor, Gilbert, highlighted the effectiveness of boxing headgear in preventing concussion.
''You look at boxing and the extra thickness in padding - I don't see too many amateur boxers getting knocked out in a fight,'' he said. ''I'm not getting knocked with someone hitting me face to face, I'm getting knocked out by getting hit in the back of the head, and on the temple, and something triggers and it sends me over.
''Jaw you can't do anything about, but my issue is trying to protect the temple and the back parts of your head. It's something to look at and design, it's probably not going to be the most aesthetically pleasing thing, but it would be something worth looking at.''
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...ll-explored-20110602-1fiw4.html#ixzz1OAMVh1MD
