Study: Youths don't bounce back after 2nd concussion
Children and young adults take longer to recover from a concussion if they've suffered a previous hit to the head within a year or repeated blows at any time, according to a study published on Monday.
Doctors had assumed it was bad for kids to get multiple knocks on the head, but the new study, from Boston Children's Hospital, is the first to confirm the connection and put a time frame on recovery.
The study found that kids and young adults, 11 to 22, who arrived in the emergency room with a repeat concussion — either within a year, or multiple times over a lifetime — took longer to recover than those with a first concussion. A single previous concussion more than a year earlier did not increase the risk for a longer recovery.
Most kids bounce back from concussions within a few weeks, but some take months, and doctors are trying to understand what makes the difference so they can better treat and protect them.
The study, in the journal Pediatrics, suggests that the effects may last longer than thought — something coaches and parents should consider in deciding when kids should return to the athletic field, said Matthew Eisenberg, a study author and physician at Boston Children's.
“This just adds another little weight to the risk side” when weighing benefits and risks, he says.
Patients without a prior concussion took 12 days on average to recover, while those with several previous concussions took 28 days. Recovery from a second concussion within a year took 35 days. About 60 percent had been injured playing sports. It's not entirely clear whether the recovery is longer because the damage lingers unseen for a long time after a blow, or because someone who has had a concussion is more likely to be aware of symptoms.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Judge orders nonprofit tax form release in case against IRS
- Poll shows giant gap between what public, scientists think
- Rock pythons creep into Everglades
- Senators approve Keystone pipeline
- Police in South Carolina: Family killed man in custody fight
- Penn State University eyes changes to sexual misconduct case handling
- Obama calls for government spending surge
- Former Idaho National Guard soldier’s benefits claims yield indictment
- Overhaul of military benefit programs sought
- Medicare payments to tie doctor, hospital payments to quality rather than volume of care
- San Francisco blaze kills Mission District resident