Literature DB >> 21062179

Emergency face-mask removal effectiveness: a comparison of traditional and nontraditional football helmet face-mask attachment systems.

Erik E Swartz1, Keith Belmore, Laura C Decoster, Charles W Armstrong.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Football helmet face-mask attachment design changes might affect the effectiveness of face-mask removal.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of face-mask removal between newly designed and traditional football helmets.
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study.
SETTING: Applied biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five certified athletic trainers. INTERVENTION(S): The independent variable was face-mask attachment system on 5 levels: (1) Revolution IQ with Quick Release (QR), (2) Revolution IQ with Quick Release hardware altered (QRAlt), (3) traditional (Trad), (4) traditional with hardware altered (TradAlt), and (5) ION 4D (ION). Participants removed face masks using a cordless screwdriver with a back-up cutting tool or only the cutting tool for the ION. Investigators altered face-mask hardware to unexpectedly challenge participants during removal for traditional and Revolution IQ helmets. Participants completed each condition twice in random order and were blinded to hardware alteration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Removal success, removal time, helmet motion, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Time and 3-dimensional helmet motion were recorded. If the face mask remained attached at 3 minutes, the trial was categorized as unsuccessful. Participants rated each trial for level of difficulty (RPE). We used repeated-measures analyses of variance (α  =  .05) with follow-up comparisons to test for differences.
RESULTS: Removal success was 100% (48 of 48) for QR, Trad, and ION; 97.9% (47 of 48) for TradAlt; and 72.9% (35 of 48) for QRAlt. Differences in time for face-mask removal were detected (F(4,20)  =  48.87, P  =  .001), with times ranging from 33.96 ± 14.14 seconds for QR to 99.22 ± 20.53 seconds for QRAlt. Differences were found in range of motion during face-mask removal (F(4,20)  =  16.25, P  =  .001), with range of motion from 10.10° ± 3.07° for QR to 16.91° ± 5.36° for TradAlt. Differences also were detected in RPE during face-mask removal (F(4,20)  =  43.20, P  =  .001), with participants reporting average perceived difficulty ranging from 1.44 ± 1.19 for QR to 3.68 ± 1.70 for TradAlt.
CONCLUSIONS: The QR and Trad trials resulted in superior results. When trials required cutting loop straps, results deteriorated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21062179      PMCID: PMC2978007          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-45.6.560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  14 in total

1.  Face-Mask Removal: Movement and Time Associated With Cutting of the Loop Straps.

Authors:  Erik E. Swartz; Susan A. Norkus; Charles W. Armstrong; Douglas M. Kleiner
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Removal Tools are Faster and Produce Less Force and Torque on the Helmet Than Cutting Tools During Face-Mask Retraction.

Authors:  Heather L Jenkins; Tamara C Valovich; Brent L Arnold; Bruce M Gansneder
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  A 3-Dimensional Analysis of Face-Mask Removal Tools in Inducing Helmet Movement.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Charles W Armstrong; James M Rankin; Burton Rogers
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 4.  Catastrophic cervical spine injuries in the collision sport athlete, part 2: principles of emergency care.

Authors:  Rahul Banerjee; Mark A Palumbo; Paul D Fadale
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2004 Oct-Nov       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  Football equipment design affects face mask removal efficiency.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Susan A Norkus; Tom Cappaert; Laura C Decoster
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2005-07-06       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Combined tool approach is 100% successful for emergency football face mask removal.

Authors:  Aaron J Copeland; Laura C Decoster; Erik E Swartz; Eric R Gattie; Stephanie D Gale
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 3.638

7.  The influence of various factors on high school football helmet face mask removal: a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Laura C Decoster; Susan A Norkus; Thomas A Cappaert
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2007 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Football face-mask removal with a cordless screwdriver on helmets used for at least one season of play.

Authors:  Laura C Decoster; Chandra P Shirley; Erik E Swartz
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  A comparison of head movement during back boarding by motorized spine-board and log-roll techniques.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Jennifer Nowak; Chandra Shirley; Laura C Decoster
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  The combined tool approach for face mask removal during on-field conditions.

Authors:  Stephanie D Gale; Laura C Decoster; Erik E Swartz
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.860

View more
  3 in total

1.  Emergent Access to the Airway and Chest in American Football Players.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Jason P Mihalik; Laura C Decoster; Sossan Al-Darraji; Justin Bric
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Successful removal of football helmet face-mask clips after 1 season of use.

Authors:  Jason S Scibek; Joseph M Gatti; Jennifer I McKenzie
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  Removal time and efficacy of Riddell Quick Release Face Guard Attachment System side clips during 1 football season.

Authors:  Tonia Gruppen; Molly Smith; Andrea Ganss
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.