Biological Maturation Predicts Sex-Specific Injury Risk in Junior Tennis Athletes

Biological Maturation and the Pediatric Athlete

The push for early talent identification often places adolescent athletes in high-intensity training environments during critical windows of physiological development [1, 2]. While these programs aim to accelerate performance, they frequently coincide with rapid biological maturation, a period characterized by significant changes in bone density, motor competence, and biomechanical loading [3, 4]. This developmental volatility is a known contributor to overuse injuries and long-term musculoskeletal issues, such as spondylolysis and ligamentous laxity [5, 6]. Despite the recognized risks, clinical guidance has often lacked the sex-specific, longitudinal data necessary to pinpoint exactly when an athlete's injury risk peaks relative to their growth spurt [7, 8]. A 15-year retrospective analysis now provides a clearer mapping of these vulnerabilities in junior tennis players, offering physicians concrete data to guide individualized load management.

Defining Developmental Milestones in Junior Tennis

To quantify the relationship between physical growth and musculoskeletal vulnerability, researchers retrospectively analyzed data from 100 junior tennis athletes (50 boys and 50 girls). The study spanned 15 competitive seasons between 2006 and 2021 at a single tennis academy, providing a longitudinal perspective on injury patterns. The primary metrics for biological maturation were peak height velocity (the period of fastest somatic growth) and the age at peak height velocity (the specific chronological age at which this maximum growth rate occurs). By using these markers, the authors moved beyond chronological age to assess injury risk based on individual physiological development. The study classified athletes into five distinct maturity phases based on their temporal proximity to the age at peak height velocity. Phase 1 included athletes more than 18 months before their peak growth, while Phase 2 captured the window between 18 and 6 months before this milestone. Phase 3 was defined as the immediate peripubertal period, spanning from 6 months before to 6 months after the age at peak height velocity. Post-peak maturation was divided into Phase 4, covering 6 to 18 months after the peak, and Phase 5, which included athletes more than 18 months past their peak growth velocity. The researchers established injury incidence and injury burden (defined as the number of days lost per year due to medical issues) as the primary and secondary outcomes. To ensure statistical rigor, the data were analyzed using a Zero-inflated Poisson regression model, a statistical method designed to handle datasets with frequent zero counts, such as athletes who remained uninjured during the study period. This model was adjusted for sex and maturity phase while also accounting for the estimated minimum training volume of each participant, ensuring that observed correlations reflected biological development rather than simply increased time spent on the court.

Sex-Specific Growth Trajectories

The analysis of growth patterns revealed that biological maturation occurs on distinct timelines for male and female athletes, necessitating a move away from chronological age as a standard for training intensity. For boys, the mean age at peak height velocity was 13.2 years, though the timing varied significantly between individuals, ranging from 11.1 to 15.7 years. During this peak developmental window, boys achieved a mean peak height velocity of 96.3 mm/year, with a recorded range between 91.1 and 103.2 mm/year. These metrics provide clinicians with a specific physiological window where rapid skeletal growth may outpace muscular and tendinous adaptation, potentially increasing the risk of overuse injuries. In contrast, girls reached their maximum growth rate significantly earlier than their male counterparts. The mean age at peak height velocity for girls was 11.5 years, with an interindividual range spanning from 9.3 to 13.7 years. The intensity of this growth spurt was also lower in girls, who showed a mean peak height velocity of 92.3 mm/year, with a range of 79.9 to 98.7 mm/year. The researchers noted that significant sex differences were observed for both the age at peak height velocity and the peak height velocity indicators, confirming that the biological demands of maturation are not uniform across the cohort. Perhaps most critical for clinical practice is the high degree of variability in maturation timing among athletes of the same age. The study found that the total interindividual range in the age at peak height velocity across the entire cohort was 4.5 years. This wide gap means that two 12-year-old athletes could be at entirely different stages of physiological development, with one yet to begin their growth spurt and another already nearing skeletal maturity. Because the timing of peak growth is such a highly individualized metric, pediatricians and sports medicine physicians cannot rely on chronological age to predict when an athlete is entering a period of heightened musculoskeletal vulnerability.

Divergent Windows of Injury Vulnerability

Over the 15-year study period, the researchers documented a total of 256 injuries among the cohort of 100 junior tennis athletes. When analyzing these events through the lens of biological maturation, the data revealed that the period of highest risk does not occur at the same developmental stage for both sexes. For boys, the most significant period of vulnerability coincided exactly with their peak growth spurt, categorized as Phase 3 (the window 6 months before and after the age of peak height velocity). During this phase, boys experienced the highest injury incidence at 1.34 injuries per year (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.84). The severity of the impact on training and competition was also most pronounced for male athletes during this peak growth window. The highest injury burden for boys occurred in Phase 3, resulting in 16.4 days lost per year (95% CI, 3.04 to 36.94). Both the injury incidence and burden for boys in Phase 3 were significantly higher than those recorded in Phase 1, suggesting that the rapid skeletal changes occurring during the actual growth spurt create a specific window of musculoskeletal fragility. In contrast, female athletes exhibited a delayed peak in injury risk, with the highest vulnerability appearing well after their peak growth velocity had passed. For girls, the highest injury incidence occurred in Phase 5 at 0.98 injuries per year (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.32), which corresponds to the period more than 18 months after reaching their age of peak height velocity. Similarly, the highest injury burden for girls was observed in Phase 5, with 7.2 days lost per year (95% CI, 2.24 to 18.82). As seen in the male cohort, the injury incidence and burden for girls in Phase 5 were significantly higher than those in Phase 1. This divergent pattern suggests that while boys are most at risk during the mechanical stress of rapid growth, girls may face increased vulnerability as they transition into a more mature physiological state and encounter higher competitive intensities following maturation.

Clinical Implications for Load Management

The longitudinal data from 100 junior tennis athletes (50 boys and 50 girls) collected over 15 competitive seasons between 2006 and 2021 demonstrate that chronological age is an insufficient metric for assessing injury risk. Because the researchers observed a wide interindividual range in the age at peak height velocity of 4.5 years, clinicians must prioritize biological maturation over birth year when designing load management protocols. The mean age at peak height velocity (the point of fastest growth during puberty) was 13.2 years for boys, with a range of 11.1 to 15.7 years, and a mean peak height velocity of 96.3 mm/year. For girls, the mean age at peak height velocity was 11.5 years, with a range of 9.3 to 13.7 years, and a mean peak height velocity of 92.3 mm/year. These variations mean that two 12-year-old athletes may be in entirely different physiological phases, requiring distinct approaches to training volume and injury prevention. For male athletes, clinical monitoring should be most intensive during the actual growth spurt, defined as Phase 3 (the period 6 months before and after the age of peak height velocity). The study utilized a Zero-inflated Poisson model (a statistical method used to analyze count data that includes an excess of zero counts) adjusted for sex and phase to determine that boys in Phase 3 face the highest injury incidence at 1.34 injuries per year (95% CI, 0.57 to 1.84) and the highest injury burden at 16.4 days lost per year (95% CI, 3.04 to 36.94). These figures were significantly higher than those in Phase 1, which occurs more than 18 months before the peak growth spurt. Physicians should advise coaches to moderate training intensity and volume during this specific window to mitigate the risk of musculoskeletal injury and significant time loss from the sport. The clinical focus for female athletes must shift toward the post-maturation period, as their risk profile differs significantly from their male counterparts. Unlike boys, girls reached their peak vulnerability in Phase 5, which is the period more than 18 months after reaching the age of peak height velocity. In this phase, girls experienced their highest injury incidence of 0.98 injuries per year (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.32) and a burden of 7.2 days lost per year (95% CI, 2.24 to 18.82), both of which were higher than the rates seen in Phase 1. This suggests that the stabilization of biological growth does not equate to a reduction in risk for female tennis players. Instead, the transition into a mature physiological state may require specific strength and conditioning interventions to handle the increased competitive demands of late adolescence. By utilizing individualized, maturation-specific strategies, clinicians can better address the total of 256 injuries recorded in this population and improve long-term athletic health.

References

1. Güllich A, Barth M. Effects of Early Talent Promotion on Junior and Senior Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine. 2023. doi:10.1007/s40279-023-01957-3

2. Güllich A, Barth M, Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ. Quantifying the Extent to Which Successful Juniors and Successful Seniors are Two Disparate Populations: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Findings. Sports Medicine. 2023. doi:10.1007/s40279-023-01840-1

3. Burton AM, Cowburn I, Thompson F, Eisenmann JC, Nicholson B, Till K. Associations Between Motor Competence and Physical Activity, Physical Fitness and Psychosocial Characteristics in Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine. 2023. doi:10.1007/s40279-023-01886-1

4. Weaver CM, Gordon CM, Janz KF, et al. The National Osteoporosis Foundation’s position statement on peak bone mass development and lifestyle factors: a systematic review and implementation recommendations. Osteoporosis International. 2016. doi:10.1007/s00198-015-3440-3

5. Wall J, Meehan WP, Trompeter K, et al. Incidence, prevalence and risk factors for low back pain in adolescent athletes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2021-104749

6. Cronström A, Tengman E, Häger CK. Return to Sports: A Risky Business? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Graft Rupture Following ACL Reconstruction. Sports Medicine. 2022. doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01747-3

7. Mason J, Kniewasser C, Hollander K, Zech A. Intrinsic Risk Factors for Ankle Sprain Differ Between Male and Female Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Medicine - Open. 2022. doi:10.1186/s40798-022-00530-y

8. Farley JB, Barrett LM, Keogh J, Woods CT, Milne N. The relationship between physical fitness attributes and sports injury in female, team ball sport players: a systematic review. Sports Medicine - Open. 2020. doi:10.1186/s40798-020-00264-9