Abrasion injuries on artificial turf : A systematic review

Objectives: To review the incidence of abrasion injuries sustained on artificial turf playing fields and the level of evidence existing on player perceptions of abrasion injuries on these surfaces. Design: Systematic review. Method: A systematic search was performed using SPORTDiscus, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct databases. Inclusion criteria included: abrasion type injuries measured; conducted on artificial/synthetic turf; type of sport reported; peer-reviewed original research; English language search terms, but no language restrictions. A quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. Results: The search yielded 76 potential articles, with 25 meeting all inclusion criteria. Twenty articles were injury-based and five were perception–based. The differences in injury definition and the lack of details of the playing surfaces produced varying results on the rate of injuries on artificial turf. Regardless of the condition of the surface, the level of play, or the sport, players perceived the fear of abrasion injuries as a major disadvantage of artificial turf surfaces. Conclusions: The review highlighted the current disparity that exists between players’ perceptions of abrasion injuries and the level of evidence of abrasion injury risk on artificial turf playing surfaces. There is a need for the inclusion of greater detail of playing surfaces’ specifications and condition, and an injury definition sufficiently sensitive to better measure abrasion injury incidence and severity. Without this more detailed information, it is likely that the strongly perceived risk of abrasion injuries will continue as a barrier to the adoption of artificial playing surfaces

Abrasion injuries on artificial turf: A systematic review

© 2018 Sports Medicine Australia Objectives: To review the incidence of abrasion injuries sustained on artificial turf playing fields and the level of evidence existing on player perceptions of abrasion injuries on these surfaces. Design: Systematic review. Method: A systematic search was performed using SPORTDiscus, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Science Direct databases. Inclusion criteria included: abrasion type injuries measured; conducted on artificial/synthetic turf; type of sport reported; peer-reviewed original research; English language search terms, but no language restrictions. A quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale. Results: The search yielded 76 potential articles, with 25 meeting all inclusion criteria. Twenty articles were injury-based and five were perception–based. The differences in injury definition and the lack of details of the playing surfaces produced varying results on the rate of injuries on artificial turf. Regardless of the condition of the surface, the level of play, or the sport, players perceived the fear of abrasion injuries as a major disadvantage of artificial turf surfaces. Conclusions: The review highlighted the current disparity that exists between players’ perceptions of abrasion injuries and the level of evidence of abrasion injury risk on artificial turf playing surfaces. There is a need for the inclusion of greater detail of playing surfaces’ specifications and condition, and an injury definition sufficiently sensitive to better measure abrasion injury incidence and severity. Without this more detailed information, it is likely that the strongly perceived risk of abrasion injuries will continue as a barrier to the adoption of artificial playing surfaces

Abrasion testing on synthetic turf : A modified device

Despite the improved quality of synthetic turf surfaces, players are still expressing their discontent with the perceived greater risk of sustaining abrasion injuries on them relative to natural turf. The validity of the current device, the Securisport®, used to measure the abrasiveness of synthetic turf playing surfaces has been challenged based on its unrealistic interaction with the surface throughout testing. It rotates on the surface at a speed of 40 ± 1 r/min. The aim of this study was to compare the abrasion measurements from the current Securisport device with those from a modified device. The modified device moved across the surface in a linear direction at a speed of 5 m/s, replicating a soccer slide tackle. Data were captured for three trials for each device on three different surfaces: sand-only infill, low-rubber infill and high-rubber infill. Overall, it was found that there was a significant mean abrasion difference of 51.7% between the two devices (p = 0.02) and also significant differences resided between the two devices at specific infill levels. The results of this study found that the specific modifications to the current Securisport device, substantially changed abrasion measurements on synthetic turf, therefore illustrating the need for further work to improve the validity of the Securisport. © IMechE 2015