Riccardo Maria Lanzetti1, Domenico Lupariello1, Teresa Venditto2, Pierpaolo Rota1, Matteo Guzzini1, Antonio Vadalà1, Attilio Rota3, Andrea Ferretti1. 1. Orthopaedic Unit and "Kirk Kilgour" Sports Injury Centre, S. Andrea Hospital, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Anatomy, Histology, Forensic Medicine and Orthopedics, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Italy. 3. Ospedale Sandro Pertini, Roma, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the use of artificial turf surfaces in rugby. In particular, artificial surfaces may be an useful means of increasing participation in the sport by allowing greater usage of a given pitch, especially in regions where natural turf pitches are difficult to maintain. METHODS: The incidence of site, nature, cause, and severity of training and match injuries was prospectively recorded in two professional teams (one equipped with World Rugby certified third generation artificial turf and the other with natural grass over the 2014-2015 season). RESULTS: A total of 23,840 minutes of exposure was displayed for the whole sample, 1,440 minutes during matches and 22,400 during training sessions. We recorded 37 (48%) traumatic injuries and 39 (52%) overuse injuries. For traumatic injuries, we did not find significant differences in the overall risk injury between grass and artificial turf considering match exposure and training sessions. For overuse injuries, there were significant differences in the overall risk injury between grass and artificial turf considering match exposure (p=0.03) and training sessions (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: In elite Italian rugby players, artificial turf seems to be safe in regards to traumatic injury while it seems to be a risk factor for overuse injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in the use of artificial turf surfaces in rugby. In particular, artificial surfaces may be an useful means of increasing participation in the sport by allowing greater usage of a given pitch, especially in regions where natural turf pitches are difficult to maintain. METHODS: The incidence of site, nature, cause, and severity of training and match injuries was prospectively recorded in two professional teams (one equipped with World Rugby certified third generation artificial turf and the other with natural grass over the 2014-2015 season). RESULTS: A total of 23,840 minutes of exposure was displayed for the whole sample, 1,440 minutes during matches and 22,400 during training sessions. We recorded 37 (48%) traumatic injuries and 39 (52%) overuse injuries. For traumatic injuries, we did not find significant differences in the overall risk injury between grass and artificial turf considering match exposure and training sessions. For overuse injuries, there were significant differences in the overall risk injury between grass and artificial turf considering match exposure (p=0.03) and training sessions (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: In elite Italian rugby players, artificial turf seems to be safe in regards to traumatic injury while it seems to be a risk factor for overuse injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: James R Jastifer; Andrew S McNitt; Christina D Mack; Richard W Kent; Kirk A McCullough; Michael J Coughlin; Robert B Anderson Journal: Sports Health Date: 2018-08-10 Impact factor: 3.843
Authors: Javier Sánchez-Sánchez; Ana M Gallardo-Guerrero; Antonio García-Gallart; Juan Antonio Sánchez-Sáez; José L Felipe; Alberto Encarnación-Martínez Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-05-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sean Williams; Charli Robertson; Lindsay Starling; Carly McKay; Stephen West; James Brown; Keith Stokes Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 11.928