Incidence, Mechanisms, and Severity of Game-Related College Football Injuries on FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass A 3-Year Prospective Study
Incidence, Mechanisms, and Severity of Game-Related College Football Injuries on FieldTurf Versus Natural Grass A 3-Year Prospective Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0363546509352464
复制
发表时间：
2010-04-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Meyers, Michael C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Meyers, Michael C.
背景：许多受伤是由于在人造草坪上比赛造成的。最近，开发了FieldTurf，以复制天然草的运动特性。没有长期的研究已经进行了比较比赛相关的大学橄榄球受伤之间的两个playingsoft.Hypothesis：大学运动员不经历任何差异的发病率，机制，和严重程度的比赛相关的伤害之间的FieldTurf和天然grass.Study设计：队列研究;证据等级，2.方法：对24所大学在3个赛季的比赛中受伤的发生率、受伤类型、受伤时间、受伤时间损失、球员位置、受伤机制、主要受伤类型、损伤的级别和解剖位置，受伤组织的类型，创伤（头，膝，肩），和环境factors.Results：总之，465大学比赛进行了评估，持续在3个赛季的足球运动场草坪或天然草地上的比赛相关的损伤。总的来说，230场团队比赛（49.5%）是在菲尔德草坪上进行的，而235场团队比赛（50.5%）是在天然草坪上进行的。共有2253人受伤，其中1050人（46.6%）发生在球场上，1203人（53.4%）发生在天然草地上。每10场团队比赛的多变量分析表明，总损伤发生率显著降低，F（3，2249）5 3.468，P = 0.016，n -β = 0.778，在菲尔德草坪上，45.7（95%置信区间[CI]，44.2-46.3），而天然草坪，51.2（95% CI，49.8-51.7）。轻微伤害发生率显著降低，38.0（95% CI，36.9-38.5）vs 39.9（95% CI，39.1-40.0，P = .001），实质性损伤发生率，5.0（95% CI，4.3-5.6）vs 7.2（95% CI，6.6-7.7，P = 0.020），严重损伤发生率，2.7（95% CI，2.1-3.3）和4.1（95% CI，3.5-4.1; P = 0.049），分别记录在FieldTurf和天然草上。多变量分析还表明，在比较受伤时间损失，受伤情况，受伤程度，在各种现场条件下的伤害，和温度时，显着减少创伤。没有显着差异，头部，膝盖，或肩部创伤之间的游戏surface.Conclusion：菲尔德草皮是在许多情况下比天然草更安全。然而，必须重申的是，这项研究的结果可能仅适用于这一竞争水平。由于这项研究仍处于早期阶段，调查正在进行中。
Background: Numerous injuries have been attributed to playing on artificial turf. More recently, FieldTurf was developed to duplicate the playing characteristics of natural grass. No long-term studies have been conducted comparing game-related collegiate football injuries between the 2 playing surfaces.Hypothesis: Collegiate athletes do not experience any difference in the incidence, mechanisms, and severity of game-related injuries between FieldTurf and natural grass.Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.Methods: Twenty-four universities were evaluated over 3 competitive seasons for injury incidence, injury category, time of injury, injury time loss, player position, injury mechanism, primary type of injury, grade and anatomical location of injury, type of tissue injured, trauma (head, knee, and shoulder), and environmental factors.Results: In sum, 465 collegiate games were evaluated for game-related football injuries sustained on FieldTurf or natural grass during 3 seasons. Overall, 230 team games (49.5%) were played on FieldTurf versus 235 team games (50.5%) played on natural grass. A total of 2253 injuries were documented, with 1050 (46.6%) occurring during play on FieldTurf, and 1203 (53.4%) on natural grass. Multivariate analysis per 10 team games indicated significantly lower total injury incidence rates, F(3, 2249) 5 3.468, P = .016, n - beta = 0.778, on FieldTurf, 45.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.2-46.3), versus natural grass, 51.2 (95% CI, 49.8-51.7). Significantly lower minor injury incidence rates, 38.0 (95% CI, 36.9-38.5) versus 39.9 (95% CI, 39.1-40.0, P = .001), substantial injury incidence rates, 5.0 (95% CI, 4.3-5.6) versus 7.2 (95% CI, 6.6-7.7, P = .020), and severe injury incidence rates, 2.7 (95% CI, 2.1-3.3) versus 4.1 (95% CI, 3.5-4.1; P = .049), were documented on FieldTurf versus natural grass, respectively. Multivariate analyses also indicated significantly less trauma on FieldTurf when comparing injury time loss, injury situation, grade of injury, injuries under various field conditions, and temperature. No significant differences in head, knee, or shoulder trauma were observed between playing surfaces.Conclusion: FieldTurf is in many cases safer than natural grass. It must be reiterated, however, that the findings of this study may be generalizable to only this level of competition. Because this study is still in the early stages, investigation is ongoing.