Associations Between Hip Pathology, Hip and Groin Pain, and Injuries in Hockey Athletes: A Clinical Commentary.
Matt Kelly, Josh Secomb
PMID 38707850WHAT IT FOUND
Hip and groin pain in hockey athletes is linked to a cycle of structural changes, not just one injury.
Cam morphology may lead to labral tears, which cause ligament lengthening and hip instability. This triggers muscle guarding, reduced range of motion, and compensatory movements that increase the risk of core muscle and adductor injuries.
Key findings
01Repetitive joint loading during adolescence, rather than specific skating mechanics, is suggested as the primary driver for cam morphology development.
02Intra-articular injuries like labral tears can lead to ligament lengthening and hip microinstability, which then causes compensatory movement patterns and further soft tissue injuries.
03Screening for hip range of motion and strength imbalances is recommended to identify athletes at risk, though specific target values are based on expert opinion rather than validated norms.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a narrative review and clinical commentary, not a primary research study, so it does not provide new data or prove causation. The suggested screening target values are based on expert opinion and anecdotal evidence, not validated normative data for hockey athletes. The biomechanical models proposed are theoretical and require further research to confirm associations between specific movement patterns and injury risk. The commentary relies on existing literature which may have varying methodological quality.
Declared interests
No conflicts of interest or funding sources are reported in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat the suggested screening target values as validated norms. The authors state these are based on current literature and anecdotal evidence, and explicitly recommend establishing normative data in future research. Using these specific numbers for clinical decision-making without acknowledging their expert-opinion basis may lead to inaccurate risk stratification.