Proposes a discipline-specific return-to-sport framework for artistic gymnastics, suggesting improved management of concussions.
Sport-related concussion (SRC) represents a clinically relevant injury concern in artistic gymnastics (AG) due to the sport’s distinctive biomechanical and neuromotor demands, including frequent inversion, aerial rotation, and high-impact landings. Although international concussion consensus statements provide overarching principles for concussion management and return-to-sport (RTS) decision making, their sport-agnostic nature limits direct applicability to AG. The purpose of this paper was to propose a discipline-specific RTS framework to assist clinical decision making following concussion in AG, aligned with the Federation Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG) Concussion Guidelines and informed by contemporary international consensus recommendations. A narrative, guideline-based framework development approach was employed, synthesizing peer-reviewed literature published between 2000 and 2025 that addressed SRC, RTS principles, and gymnastics-specific biomechanical and neuromotor demands. The resulting framework outlines a structured, symptom-limited progression for return to AG following concussion, integrating general concussion recovery principles with gymnastics-specific training elements to provide clinically actionable guidance while maintaining alignment with established international standards. Emphasis is placed on individualized progression, ongoing medical oversight, and functional readiness rather than time-based clearance alone. This discipline-specific RTS framework offers a practical and policy-aligned approach to concussion management in AG by operationalizing the FIG Concussion Guidelines within the context of gymnastics-specific demands, thereby supporting safer RTS decision making and bridging the gap between consensus-level recommendations and real-world gymnastics practice. Further empirical research is warranted to evaluate clinical outcomes associated with implementation of this framework.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kara et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: