Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related collegiate women's soccer injuries on FieldTurf and natural grass surfaces: a 5-year prospective study
Meyers MC
The American journal of sports medicine · 35 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Clinical events such as disease or death
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Nonprofit
- National Collegiate Athletic Association
Based on 1 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2013-08-13 · Am J Sports Med · vol. 41 · issue 10 · pp. 2409–2420
- Publisher
- SAGE Publishing
- Cited
- 64 citations · more than 92% of similar papers · 3.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 65 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Sports injuries and prevention · Turfgrass Adaptation and Management · Tendon Structure and Treatment
- Keywords
- Athletes, Incidence (geometry), Medicine, Confidence interval, Injury prevention, Team sport, Physical therapy, Poison control, Demography, Emergency medicine, Internal medicine, Mathematics
- MeSH
- humans, craniocerebral trauma, athletic injuries, knee injuries, body weight, incidence, prospective studies, environment, soccer, shoes, united states, female, young adult
1 author
From US
- Michael C. Meyers · correspondingIdaho State University
Abstract
Background
Numerous injuries have been attributed to playing on artificial turf. Over the past 2 decades, however, newer generations of synthetic turf have been developed to duplicate the playing characteristics of natural grass. Although synthetic turf has been determined to be safer than natural grass in some studies, few long-term studies have been conducted comparing match-related collegiate soccer injuries between the 2 playing surfaces.
Hypothesis
Collegiate female soccer athletes do not experience any difference in the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of match-related injuries on FieldTurf and on natural grass.
Study design
Cohort study: Level of evidence, 2.
Methods
Female soccer athletes from 13 universities were evaluated over 5 competitive seasons for injury incidence, injury category, time of injury, injury time loss, player position, injury mechanism and situation, primary type of injury, injury grade and anatomic location, field location at the time of injury, injury severity, head and lower extremity trauma, cleat design, turf age, and environmental factors. In sum, 797 collegiate games were evaluated for match-related soccer injuries sustained on FieldTurf or natural grass during 5 seasons.
Results
Overall, 355 team games (44.5%) were played on FieldTurf versus 442 team games (55.5%) on natural grass. A total of 693 injuries were documented, with 272 (39.2%) occurring during play on FieldTurf and 421 (60.8%) on natural grass. Multivariate analysis per 10 team games indicated a significant playing surface effect: F₂,₆₉₀ = 6.435, P = .002, n-β = .904. A significantly lower total injury incidence rate (IIR) of 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.2-8.1) versus 9.5 (95% CI, 9.3-9.7) (P = .0001) and lower rate of substantial injuries, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5-1.0) versus 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.9) (P = .001), were documented on FieldTurf versus natural grass, respectively. Analyses also indicated significantly less trauma on FieldTurf when comparing injury time loss, player position, injury grade, injuries under various field conditions and temperatures, cleat design, and turf age.
Conclusion
Although similarities existed between FieldTurf and natural grass during competitive match play, FieldTurf is a practical alternative when comparing injuries in collegiate women's soccer. It must be reiterated that the findings of this study may be generalizable to only collegiate competition and this specific artificial surface.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.