Football codes (rugby union, soccer, American football) train and play matches on natural and artificial turfs. A review of injuries on different turfs was needed to inform practitioners and sporting bodies on turf-related injury mechanisms and risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this review was to compare the incidence, nature and mechanisms of injuries sustained on newer generation artificial turfs and natural turfs. Electronic databases were searched using the keywords 'artificial turf', 'natural turf', 'grass' and 'inj*'. Delimitation of 120 articles sourced to those addressing injuries in football codes and those using third and fourth generation artificial turfs or natural turfs resulted in 11 experimental papers. These 11 papers provided 20 cohorts that could be assessed using magnitude-based inferences for injury incidence rate ratio calculations pertaining to differences between surfaces. Analysis showed that 16 of the 20 cohorts showed trivial effects for overall incidence rate ratios between surfaces. There was increased risk of ankle injury playing on artificial turf in eight cohorts, with incidence rate ratios from 0.7 to 5.2. Evidence concerning risk of knee injuries on the two surfaces was inconsistent, with incidence rate ratios from 0.4 to 2.8. Two cohorts showed beneficial inferences over the 90% likelihood value for effects of artificial surface on muscle injuries for soccer players; however, there were also two harmful, four unclear and five trivial inferences across the three football codes. Inferences relating to injury severity were inconsistent, with the exception that artificial turf was very likely to have harmful effects for minor injuries in rugby union training and severe injuries in young female soccer players. No clear differences between surfaces were evident in relation to training versus match injuries. Potential mechanisms for differing injury patterns on artificial turf compared with natural turf include increased peak torque and rotational stiffness properties of shoe-surface interfaces, decreased impact attenuation properties of surfaces, differing foot loading patterns and detrimental physiological responses. Changing between surfaces may be a precursor for injury in soccer. In conclusion, studies have provided strong evidence for comparable rates of injury between new generation artificial turfs and natural turfs. An exception is the likely increased risk of ankle injury on third and fourth generation artificial turfs. Therefore, ankle injury prevention strategies must be a priority for athletes who play on artificial turf regularly. Clarification of effects of artificial surfaces on muscle and knee injuries are required given inconsistencies in incidence rate ratios depending on the football code, athlete, gender or match versus training.

A Review of Football Injuries on Third and Fourth Generation Artificial Turfs Compared with Natural Turf

Differences in plantar loading between training shoes and racing flats at a self-selected running speed.

Comparison of plantar loads during treadmill and overground running.

This study was conducted to validate and evaluate the “Hit & Turn Tennis Test”, an acoustically progressive on-court endurance test for tennis players. Ninety-eight competitive tennis players (53 males, 45 females) of different age groups participated in the study. For validation, the adult male players completed three Hit & Turn tests, one on a clay court and two on a carpet surface, a tennis-specific ball machine test and an incremental treadmill run in a randomized order. A stronger correlation between maximal performance (r = 0.81, P < 0.01) and maximal oxygen uptake (r = 0.96, P < 0.01) was observed between the Hit & Turn test and the ball machine test, than between the Hit & Turn test and the treadmill test. For test–retest, we found a significant correlation between maximal performance on the same (r = 0.83, P < 0.01) and on different surfaces (r = 0.74, P < 0.01). During test evaluation, maximal performance was higher in males than in females (P < 0.01) and increased by consecutive age gr...

/pdf/the-hit-turn-tennis-test-an-acoustically-controlled-434umwv9dy.pdf

The Hit & Turn Tennis Test: an acoustically controlled endurance test for tennis players.

The aim of the study was to examine how the training surface (i.e., clay or carpet) affects the characteristics (i.e., ball velocity, running pressure, running volume, and physiological responses) of a tennis training session. Ten competitive healthy and nationally ranked male tennis players (mean ± SD: age 24.2 ± 1.7 years, weight 81.4 ± 7.6 kg, height 1.88 ± 0.05 m, body mass index 23.1 ± 1.8) participated in a maximal treadmill test and a field test (e.g., an on-court tennis training session, which consisted of 4 exercises). Subjects' oxygen uptake (VO2) and heart rate (HR) were recorded by portable analyzers, and the ball velocity was measured using a radar gun during the training sessions. We did not find any significant influence of the court surface on any of the variables analyzed under the standardized exercise conditions of the study, as suggested in previous studies conducted under match-play conditions. Moreover, data showed significant differences between maximal forehand and backhand stroke velocities, the forehand stroke being significantly faster (p = 0.01) and more energy demanding on both playing surfaces (clay: 122.0 ± 9.1 vs. 111.1 ± 7.5; carpet: 120.4 ± 6.0 vs 111.5 ± 7.0 km·h). Comparing the same stroke on the same court surface, but at different stroke velocities, we found significant differences (p < 0.05) in all the physiological measurements (e.g., HR, %HRmax; VO2; %VO2), which significantly increased with hitting velocity.

The physiological demands of hitting and running in tennis on different surfaces.

Objectives: To examine the influence of different playing surfaces on in-shoe loading patterns during tennis-specific movements. Methods: Ten experienced male players performed two types of tennis-specific displacements (serve and volley (SV) and baseline play (BA)) on two different playing surfaces; eg, clay vs Greenset. Maximum and mean force and pressure, contact time, contact area and relative load were recorded by an insole with 99 sensors (X-Pedar system) divided into 9 areas. Results: Regarding the whole foot, mean (SD) force (SV: 615 (91) vs 724 (151) N; −12.4%, p Conclusions: This study demonstrates that playing surface affects plantar loading in tennis: Greenset induced higher loading in the hallux (SV: +15.3%, p

/pdf/effects-of-the-playing-surface-on-plantar-pressures-and-4b41eudv7j.pdf

Effects of the playing surface on plantar pressures and potential injuries in tennis

In-shoe loading patterns were examined in each foot (back and front) separately during two types of tennis serve [first (or flat) and second (or twist) serve] and two service stance styles [foot-up (back foot is moved forward next to front foot for push-off) and foot-back (feet remain at the same relative level)]. Ten competitive tennis players completed five trials for each type of serve and service stance style in random order. Plantar pressure distribution was recorded using Pedar insoles divided into nine areas for analysis. Mean and peak pressures (+15.2%, P < 0.01 and +12.8%, P < 0.05) as well as maximal forces (+20.2%, P < 0.01) were higher under the lateral forefoot of the front foot in first than in second serves, while mean forces were higher (+17.2%, P < 0.05) under the lesser toes. Relative load was higher on the lateral forefoot (+20.4%, P < 0.05) but lower (−32.5%, P < 0.05) on the medial heel of the front foot with foot-up compared with foot-back stance. Using a foot-up stance, loa...

Frank Eicher

Papers

Effects of the playing surface on plantar pressures and potential injuries in tennis

Plantar pressures in the tennis serve