Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Knee injuries are prevalent among a variety of competitive sports and can impact an athlete's ability to continue to participate in their sport or, in the worst case, end an athlete's career. Objective: The aim was to evaluate biomechanics associated with both patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries (in sports involving landing, change in direction, or rapid deceleration) across the three time points frequently reported in the literature: pre-injury, at the time of injury, and following injury. Methods: A search of the literature was conducted for research evaluating biomechanics associated with ACL injury and PFPS. The Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, EBSCO, PubMed, and CINAHL databases, to March 2015, were searched, and journal articles focused on ACL injuries and PFPS in sports that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. The search methodology was created with the intent of extracting case-control, case, and cohort studies of knee injury in athletic populations. The search strategy was restricted to only full-text articles published in English. These articles were included in the review if they met all of the required selection criteria. The following inclusion criteria were used: (1) The study must report lower extremity biomechanics in one of the following settings: (a) a comparison of currently injured and uninjured participants, (b) a prospective study evaluating risk factors for injury, or (c) a study reporting on the injury event itself. (2) The study must include only currently active participants who were similar at baseline (i.e. healthy, high school level basketball players currently in-season) and include biomechanical analysis of either landing, change in direction, or rapid deceleration. (3) The study must include currently injured participants. The studies were graded on the basis of quality, which served as an indication of risk of bias. An adapted version of the 'Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology' (STROBE) guidelines was used to rate observational research. Results: Fifteen journal articles focusing on ACL injuries and PFPS in sports met the inclusion criteria. These included three associated with both ACL injuries and PFPS across multiple time points. There was limited evidence for an association between ankle biomechanics and knee injury, with only one ACL injury study identifying decreased plantar flexion in association with injury. Limitations: Only prospective studies can determine biomechanical risk factors associated with ACL injuries and PFPS. Case studies and case-control studies do not allow for the determination of risk factors associated with both ACL injuries and PFPS as there is no certainty regarding the presence of the observed biomechanics prior to the onset of injury. Further, each study design has its own set of limitations. Lastly, the majority of the studies included in this review had adult female participants. Conclusion: By evaluating several different study designs looking at knee injuries during high-risk manoeuvres, we were able to obtain a holistic perspective of biomechanics associated with PFPS and ACL injuries. Looking at different biomechanical research approaches allowed us to assess not only the mechanism of injury, but also to look for commonalities in biomechanics (in particular, altered frontal plane mechanics at the knee and altered sagittal plane mechanics at the knee and hip) between injured and uninjured participants pre-injury, at the time of injury, and following injury, to better understand potential causes of PFPS and ACL injury. Development of injury prevention programmes should focus on correcting these mechanics observed across the three time points during high-risk manoeuvres as this may help decrease the prevalence of ACL injury and PFPS. Programmes focusing not only on neuromuscular training, but also skill-specific training focused on correcting mechanics during these high-risk manoeuvres may be of greatest benefit regarding prevention. Future research should consider the impact of cumulative loading on knee injury risk. Additionally, better techniques for assessing mechanics in-game are needed in order to facilitate injury prevention and screening strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research into the nature of overuse Achilles tendon injuries is extensive, yet uncertainty remains around how to identify athletes susceptible to Achilles tendon injury. Objective: To identify the strength of evidence for biomechanical risk factors associated with Achilles tendon injuries. Research Methods: SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science and PubMed were searched for Achilles tendon injury risk factors and biomechanical measures which are altered in runners with Achilles tendon injuries, excluding ruptures. Fifteen articles were included in the analysis. Results: Two variables, high vertical forces and high arch, showed strong evidence for reduced injury risk. High propulsive forces and running on stiffer surfaces may also be protective. Only one biomechanical variable, high braking force, showed clear evidence for increasing Achilles injury risk. Discussion: Gait retraining to direct the centre of mass further forward to reduce high braking force could be useful in decreasing the risk of Achilles injury. The majority of biomechanical risk factors examined showed unclear results, which is likely due to the multifactorial nature of Achilles overuse injuries. Many risk factors are related to how the athlete's body interacts with the environment during gait, including ground reaction forces, muscle activity both prior to landing and immediately post ground contact, and joint motion throughout stance. Conclusion: Multiple risk factors have been associated with the development of Achilles tendon injuries in running athletes but most effects remain unclear. Advice for athletes recovering from Achilles tendon injuries could include avoiding soft surfaces and reducing the pace of recovery runs. Orthotic intervention could assist athletes with low arches but modification of pronation should be viewed with caution. Strength training and gait retraining could be beneficial for reducing injury risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]