The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of percussive massage therapy (PMT) on lifeguards’ recovery after a water rescue, in comparison with passive recovery. Methods: A quasi-experimental crossover design was conducted to compare passive recovery (PR) and a PMT protocol. A total of 14 volunteer lifeguards performed a simulated 100 m water rescue and perceived fatigue and blood lactate were measured as recovery variables after the rescue and after the 8-min recovery process. Results: There were no differences between PMT and PR in lactate clearance (p > 0.05), finding in both modalities a small but not significant decrease in blood lactate. In perceived fatigue, both methods decreased this variable significantly (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between them (p > 0.05). Conclusions: PMT does not enhance recovery after a water rescue, in comparison with staying passive. Despite PMT appearing to be adequate for recovery in other efforts, it is not recommended for lifeguards’ recovery after a water rescue.

Introduction: On-boat resuscitation can be applied by lifeguards in an inflatable rescue boat (IRB). Due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-COV-2) and recommendations for the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), prehospital care procedures need to be re-evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine how the use of PPE influences the amount of preparation time needed before beginning actual resuscitation and the quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR; QCPR) on an IRB. Methods: Three CPR tests were performed by 14 lifeguards, in teams of two, wearing different PPE: (1) Basic PPE (B-PPE): gloves, a mask, and protective glasses; (2) Full PPE (F-PPE): B-PPE + a waterproof apron; and (3) Basic PPE + plastic blanket (B+PPE). On-boat resuscitation using a bag-valve-mask (BVM) and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter was performed sailing at 20km/hour. Results: Using B-PPE takes less time and is significantly faster than F-PPE (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus F-PPE 69 [SD = 17] seconds; P = .001), and the use of B+PPE is slightly higher (B-PPE 17 [SD = 2] seconds versus B+PPE 34 [SD = 6] seconds; P = .002). The QCPR remained similar in all three scenarios (P >.05), reaching values over 79%. Conclusion: The use of PPE during on-board resuscitation is feasible and does not interfere with quality when performed by trained lifeguards. The use of a plastic blanket could be a quick and easy alternative to offer extra protection to lifeguards during CPR on an IRB.

No abstract

Objective Introducing a new, simple and inexpensive portable equipment for lifeguards, consisting of a pre-assembled full-size plastic blanket with a mask and HEPA filter, which could offer significant time-saving advantages to reduce COVID-19 risk transmission in the first few minutes of CPR after water rescue, avoiding the negative impact of delayed ventilation. Method A pilot study was carried out to determine the feasibility of the pre-assembled kit of face-mask and HEPA filter adapted on a pre-set plastic-blanket. The first step consisted of washing hands, putting on safety glasses and gloves as the first personal protection equipment (PPE) and then covering the victim with an assembled plastic blanket. The second step consisted of 10 min of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) with PPE and plastic blanket, following the technical recommendations for ventilation during COVID-19. Results Ten rescuers took part in the pilot study. The average time to wear PPE and place the pre-assembly kit on the victim was 82 s [IC 58–105]. After 10 min the quality of the resuscitation (QCPR) was 91% [87–94]. Quality chest compressions (CC) were 22% better than ventilations (V). Most of the rescuers (60%) thought that placing the plastic blanket on the victim on the beach was somewhat simple or very simple. Conclusions Resuscitation techniques in COVID-19 era at the beach have added complexities for the correct use of PPE. Plastic blanket plus basic ventilations equipment resource could be a new alternative to be considered for lifeguards to keep ventilation on use while reducing risk transmission.

Groin injuries are one of the most prevalent in male soccer players, especially due to the hip adductor muscles’ weakness which is considered as a risk factor in these injuries. The Copenhagen adduction (CA) exercise has been demonstrated to increase the strength of adductor muscles, but its effects on the architectural characteristics of adductor muscles have not been studied yet. This study aimed to analyze the effects of the CA exercise on the muscle thickness of the adductors. Twelve male U-17 soccer players were randomized into two groups: the control group with no intervention and the experimental group with an intervention based on an eight-week training with CA exercise. The muscle thickness of adductors was measured before and after the intervention using ultrasound imaging. A significant increase in muscle thickness was found in both control (p = 0.002) and experimental group (p < 0.001), but the experimental group did not show additional effects in comparison with the control group. In conclusion, an 8-week CA exercise intervention does not increase the muscle thickness of adductors in U-17 soccer players more than their regular training.