# Analysis of Severe Spinal Injuries in Korean Elite Female Wrestlers
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Overall (_n = 25_)** (_n, \%_)** & **Light (_n = 10_)** (_n, \%_)** & **Heavy (_n = 15_)** (_n, \%_)** & **\(p\)-Value (x2_)** \\ \hline Activity type & & & & \\ \hline Technical training & 16 (64.0) & 7 (70.0) & 9 (60.0) & \\ \hline Competition & 6 (24.0) & 3 (30.0) & 3 (20.0) & (2.053) \\ \hline Physical training & 3 (12.0) & 0 (0) & 3 (20.0) & \\ \hline Diagnosis & & & & \\ \hline Lumbosacral disc injury & 18 (72.0) & 8 (80.0) & 10 (66.7) & \\ \hline Cervical spine disc injury & 5 (20.0) & 2 (20.0) & 3 (20.0) & \(>\)0.999 \\ \hline Low back sprain & 1 (4.0) & 0 (0) & 1 (6.7) & (1.509) \\ \hline Cervical nerve injury & 1 (4.0) & 0 (0) & 1 (6.7) & \\ \hline Mechanism & & & & \\ \hline Overuse & 16 (64.0) & 8 (80.0) & 8 (53.3) & \\ \hline Player collision & 3 (12.0) & 1 (10.0) & 2 (13.3) & 0.658 \\ \hline Driven into mat & 4 (16.0) & 1 (10.0) & 3 (20.0) & (2.141) \\ \hline Non-contact & 2 (8.0) & 0 (0) & 2 (13.3) & \\ \hline Specific maneuver & & & & \\ \hline Standing attack & 6 (24.0) & 3 (30.0) & 3 (20.0) & \\ \hline Tackle attack & 10 (40.0) & 4 (40.0) & 6 (40.0) & \\ \hline Tackle defense & 1 (4.0) & 0 (0) & 1 (6.7) & 0.404 \\ \hline Ground attack & 2 (8.0) & 2 (20.0) & 0 (0) & (5.297) \\ \hline Ground defense & 3 (12.0) & 1 (10.0) & 2 (13.3) & \\ \hline Physical training & 3 (12.0) & 0 (0) & 3 (20.0) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of injury statistics of wrestlers with severe spine injuries. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Variables** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Overall (_n = 25_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Light (_n = 10_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**Heavy (_n = 15_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{_p-Value_} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{**(_n, \%_)**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Post-injury management} & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Surgery} & Yes & 9 (36.0) & 4 (40.0) & 5 (33.3) & \(>\)0.999 \\ \cline{2-6}  & No & 16 (64.0) & 6 (60.0) & 10 (66.7) & (0.166) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Rehabilitation} & Yes & 13 (52.0) & 6 (60.0) & 7 (46.7) & 0.688 \\ \cline{2-6}  & No & 12 (48.0) & 4 (40.0) & 8 (53.3) & (0.427) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Medical clearance for RTP} & Yes & 6 (24.0) & 2 (20.0) & 4 (26.7) & \(>\)0.999 \\ \cline{2-6}  & No & 19 (76.0) & 8 (80.0) & 11 (73.3) & (0.148) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Post-injury psychological distress} & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Re-injury} & 12 (48.0) & 4 (40.0) & 8 (53.3) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Performance decline} & 9 (36.0) & 4 (40.0) & 5 (33.3) & 0.715 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Rehabilitation failure} & 3 (12.0) & 1 (10.0) & 2 (13.3) & (1.927) \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Starting assignment} & 1 (4.0) & 1 (10.0) & 0 (0) & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{RTP time (months)} & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Mean \(\pm\) SD} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{2.7 \(\pm\) 1.7} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{2.8 \(\pm\) 1.8} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{2.6 \(\pm\) 1.7} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{_p_ = 0.816} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Median (range)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{3.0 (1.0–7.0)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{3.0 (1.0–7.0)} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{2.5 (1.0–6.0)} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{RTP, return-to-play; CI, confidence interval.} & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of post-injury management, psychological distress, and RTP time of wrestlers with severe spine injuries. Figure 2: Activity type in which injuries occurred (**A**), diagnosis (**B**), mechanism of injury (**C**), and specific maneuver leading to injury (**D**) by weight class. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of post-injury management, psychological distress, and RTP time status according to the injury timing.