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]

Compression garments (CG5) provide a means of applying mechanical pressure at the body surface, thereby compressing and perhaps stabilizing! supporting underlying tissue. The body segments compressed and applied pressures ostensibly reflect the purpose of the garment, which is to mitigate exercise-induced discomfort or aid aspects of current or subsequent exercise performance. Potential benefits may be mediated via physical, physiological or psychological effects, although underlying mechanisms are typically not well elucidated. Despite widespread acceptance of CGs by competitive and recreational athletes, convincing scientific evidence supporting ergogenic effects remains somewhat elusive. The literature is fragmented due to great heterogeneity among studies, with variability including the type, duration and intensity of exercise, the measures used as indicators of exercise or recovery performance/physiological function, training status of participants, when the garments were worn and for what duration, the type of garment! body area covered and the applied pressures. Little is known about the adequacy of current sizing systems, pressure variability within and among individuals, maintenance of applied pressures during one wear session or over the life of the garment and, perhaps most importantly, whether any of these actually influence potential compression-associated benefits. During exercise, relatively few ergogenic effects have been demonstrated when wearing CGs. While CGs appear to aid aspects ofjump performance in some situations, only limited data are available to indicate positive effects on performance for other forms of exercise. There is some indication for physical and physiological effects, including attenuation of muscle oscillation, improved joint awareness, perfusion augmentation and altered oxygen usage at sub-maximal intensities, but such findings are relatively isolated. Sub-maximal (at matched work loads) and maximal heart rate appears unaffected by CGs. Positive influences on perceptual responses during exercise are limited. During recovery, CGs have had mixed effects on recovery kinetics or subsequent performance. Various power and torque measurements have, on occasions, benefitted from the use of CGs in recovery, but subsequent sprint and agility performance appears no better. Results are inconsistent for post- exercise swelling of limb segments and for clearance of myocellular proteins and metabolites, while effects on plasma concentrations are difficult to interpret. However, there is some evidence for local blood flow augmentation with compression. Ratings of post-exercise muscle soreness are commonly more favourable when CGs are worn, although this is not always so. In general, the effects of CGs on indicators of recovery performance remain inconclusive. More work is needed to form a consensus or mechanistically-insightful interpretation of any demonstrated effects of CGs during exercise, recovery or - perhaps most importantly - fitness development. Limited practical recommendations for athletes can be drawn from the literature at present, although this review may help focus future research towards a position where such recommendations can be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]