Kathrin Steffen1, Thor Einar Andersen, Roald Bahr. 1. Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway. kathrin.steffen@nih.no
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Artificial turf is becoming increasingly popular, although the risk of injury on newer generations of turf is unknown. AIM: To investigate the risk of injury on artificial turf compared with natural grass among young female football players. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS:2020 players from 109 teams (mean (SD) 15.4 (0.8) years) participated in the study during the 2005 football season. Time-loss injuries and exposure data on different types of turf were recorded over an eight-month period. RESULTS: 421 (21%) players sustained 526 injuries, leading to an injury incidence of 3.7/1000 playing hours (95% CI 3.4 to 4.0). The incidence of acute injuries on artificial turf and grass did not differ significantly with respect to match injuries (rate ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.3; p = 0.72) or training injuries (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5, p = 0.93). In matches, the incidence of serious injuries was significantly higher on artificial turf (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.2; p = 0.03). Ankle sprain was the most common type of injury (34% of all acute injuries), and there was a trend towards more ankle sprains on artificial turf than on grass (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.2; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: In the present study among young female football players, the overall risk of acute injuries was similar between artificial turf and natural grass.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Artificial turf is becoming increasingly popular, although the risk of injury on newer generations of turf is unknown. AIM: To investigate the risk of injury on artificial turf compared with natural grass among young female football players. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: 2020 players from 109 teams (mean (SD) 15.4 (0.8) years) participated in the study during the 2005 football season. Time-loss injuries and exposure data on different types of turf were recorded over an eight-month period. RESULTS: 421 (21%) players sustained 526 injuries, leading to an injury incidence of 3.7/1000 playing hours (95% CI 3.4 to 4.0). The incidence of acute injuries on artificial turf and grass did not differ significantly with respect to match injuries (rate ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.3; p = 0.72) or training injuries (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.5, p = 0.93). In matches, the incidence of serious injuries was significantly higher on artificial turf (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.2; p = 0.03). Ankle sprain was the most common type of injury (34% of all acute injuries), and there was a trend towards more ankle sprains on artificial turf than on grass (RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.2; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: In the present study among young female football players, the overall risk of acute injuries was similar between artificial turf and natural grass.
Authors: Arni Arnason; Stefan B Sigurdsson; Arni Gudmundsson; Ingar Holme; Lars Engebretsen; Roald Bahr Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: C W Fuller; J Ekstrand; A Junge; T E Andersen; R Bahr; J Dvorak; M Hägglund; P McCrory; W H Meeuwisse Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Alison Suzanne Attenborough; Claire E Hiller; Richard M Smith; Max Stuelcken; Andrew Greene; Peter J Sinclair Journal: Sports Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: John W OʼKane; Kristen E Gray; Marni R Levy; Moni Neradilek; Allan F Tencer; Nayak L Polissar; Melissa A Schiff Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.638