Discussion
We have attempted to describe head impact injuries in elite cricket from the perspective of both their observable characteristics and their impacts on player performance in the context of concussive and ‘subconcussive’ injuries.
These findings indicate a non-significant trend towards initial increased batting and bowling performance at 1-month poststrike, following by a decline in performance at 3 months poststrike in those who suffer a helmet strike with concussion. This is consistent with findings from elite baseball by Sabesan et al,18 which showed a non-significant decline in batting and pitching performance on RTP postconcussion. However, this contrasts with Wasserman et al’s19 work in the same population. They demonstrated a significant reduction in batting performance in the initial 2 weeks post-RTP, with a non-significant reduction at 4–6 weeks.18 19
Studies on playing performance in other sports postconcussion, however, provide similarly inconsistent results, even within the same sport. A possible explanation for this may be the management of RTP following concussion. In elite soccer, Ramkumar et al7 demonstrated that players returning through more aggressive protocols suffered a decrement in performance versus those managed more conservatively.
Crucially, however, a significant reduction in batting performance was seen following a helmet strike, which did not result in concussion at both 1 and 3 months. While reductions in motor control have been described following subconcussive impacts in boxers, the effect of such impacts on ‘real-world’ sports performance is not well studied.20
Possibly, this may reflect concussions, which are not detected under the current approach to diagnosis. Alternatively, the differences seen between the HS-C and HS-NC groups may be explained by the extended period of rest and graded recovery afforded by the concussion diagnosis. Whether this acts to ameliorate a lasting effect on neurocognitive/motor performance or an independent effect on player psychology and behaviour should also be considered. This is important to investigate further as it may highlight a need for further assessment of these players and a managed RTP, even in the absence of concussion.
Our findings also suggest that helmet strikes occurring to the frontal, peak and grill sections of the helmet represent the greatest relative risk in terms of subsequent diagnosis of concussion. This contrasts with accelerometry and modelling data from other helmeted and non-helmeted sports that suggest lateral impacts are more injurious.21–23 In cricket, where the bowling line is permitted to contact the batsman who must react, impacts to the front of the helmet may result from a faster ball speed while a slower ball on a similar trajectory may prompt a player to turn their head in preparation for an impact. However, this relationship is clearly complex, as demonstrated by Saw et al,24 who’s work highlighted that impacts to the back of the helmet carried the highest positive predictive value of concussion.
Alternatively, the combination of helmet strike location and the subsequent direction of ball travel could be important. Counter to our intuitive colour-coding zones, impacts in the Yellow zone represented the largest concussion risk. This may be because, when the ball strikes the frontal section and rebounds laterally (Yellow zone), the rotational force on the head is greater. Rotational, rather than translational, impacts are theorised to be more likely to result in concussion. This also raises a question about whether neck strengthening interventions may be beneficial for primary prevention.24 25
Green zone impacts were also found to have higher concussion risk than expected, however, our suspicion is that this represents difficulties in judging the flight of the ball in the frontal plane. Frequently, only one view was available, usually in the frontal plane and often too narrow to view the landing of the ball after rebound. Therefore, travel into the green zone on the frontal view may in fact appear in the red zone in the sagittal view, suggesting diagnosis could be improved with access to multiple angles. This is supported by the findings of Saw et al24 who conducted a similar exercise in Australian cricket and demonstrated that the rebound of the ball towards the source or the ball stopping dead was associated with a higher risk of concussion. Standardisation of the views and reference frame in future may assist in investigating this further.
The ECB requires all players to undergo annual baseline testing using the Standardized Concussion Assessment Tool 5 and Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitve Test (ImPACT) (ImPACT Applications, Coralville) on a biannual basis unless helmet strikes are recorded, in which case it is annual. This data suggest that more detailed ImPACT testing should continue and that annual reviews should be considered. Jones et al2 surveyed retired cricketers for long-term health outcomes. No cases of dementia/neurocognitive disease were recorded, but ongoing review of retired cricketers and any potential consequence of long-term helmet strikes is warranted.
Notably, observable signs of concussion in this context appear different to those from other field sports. The value of video replay in detecting concussion is clear, particularly in football codes, and the features, which suggest a transient loss of consciousness or a concussion, are well documented. However, none of those features appeared in this series and their absence may make concussion diagnosis more challenging in cricket if this is not recognised.1 11 15 26 27
Features suggesting motor incoordination were valuable in detecting concussion in this study. However, features indicating urgency and concern from other players or officials as well as the player inspecting their helmet and pausing for >4 s before the next delivery were also important. These may be unique to cricket where rules and culture dictate the action pauses until the batsman is ready.
These findings suggest several areas for further investigation, both to understand their implications and to improve player safety. However, some important limitations should be recognised. First, our groups were weighted towards HS-NC. As a result, the concussive helmet strike element of the performance analysis was underpowered, which may explain the lack of significant findings in this group. This was unavoidable in view of the low incidence of concussive helmet strikes in cricket; however, it is an important caveat. In addition, we excluded from our analysis head impacts occurring to fielding or bowling players. This was due to the low total number of these incidents, all of them resulting in concussion. Finally, we were not able to analyse differences in the clinical status of the player between those helmet strikes captured on video and those which could not be reviewed, which may introduce a potential source of bias, though we feel this is unlikely.