scholarly journals The development of mandatory practices for the testing and maintenance of synthetic turf fields in the National Football League (NFL)

itsrj ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Jastifer ◽  
Andrew S. McNitt ◽  
Christina D. Mack ◽  
Richard W. Kent ◽  
Kirk A. McCullough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
National Football League ◽  
Synthetic Turf

scholarly journals Higher Rates of Lower Extremity Injury on Synthetic Turf Compared With Natural Turf Among National Football League Athletes: Epidemiologic Confirmation of a Biomechanical Hypothesis

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 189-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina D. Mack ◽  
Elliott B. Hershman ◽  
Robert B. Anderson ◽  
Michael J. Coughlin ◽  
Andrew S. McNitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lower Extremity ◽  
National Football League ◽  
Lower Extremity Injury ◽  
Lower Body ◽  
Extremity Injury ◽  
Lower Extremity Injuries ◽  
Natural Turf ◽  
Surface Contact ◽  
Extremity Injuries ◽  
Synthetic Turf

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown that synthetic turf surfaces do not release cleats as readily as natural turf, and it has been hypothesized that concomitant increased loading on the foot contributes to the incidence of lower body injuries. This study evaluates this hypothesis from an epidemiologic perspective, examining whether the lower extremity injury rate in National Football League (NFL) games is greater on contemporary synthetic turfs as compared with natural surfaces. Hypothesis: Incidence of lower body injury is higher on synthetic turf than on natural turf among elite NFL athletes playing on modern-generation surfaces. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Lower extremity injuries reported during 2012-2016 regular season games were included, with all 32 NFL teams reporting injuries under mandated, consistent data collection guidelines. Poisson models were used to construct crude and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) to estimate the influence of surface type on lower body injury groupings (all lower extremity, knee, ankle/foot) for any injury reported as causing a player to miss football participation as well as injuries resulting in ≥8 days missed. A secondary analysis was performed on noncontact/surface contact injuries. Results: Play on synthetic turf resulted in a 16% increase in lower extremity injuries per play than that on natural turf (IRR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23). This association between synthetic turf and injury remained when injuries were restricted to those that resulted in ≥8 days missed, as well as when categorizations were narrowed to focus on distal injuries anatomically closer to the playing surface (knee, ankle/foot). The higher rate of injury on synthetic turf was notably stronger when injuries were restricted to noncontact/surface contact injuries (IRRs, 1.20-2.03; all statistically significant). Conclusion: These results support the biomechanical mechanism hypothesized and add confidence to the conclusion that synthetic turf surfaces have a causal impact on lower extremity injury.

scholarly journals Synthetic Turf: History, Design, Maintenance, and Athlete Safety

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Jastifer ◽  
Andrew S. McNitt ◽  
Christina D. Mack ◽  
Richard W. Kent ◽  
Kirk A. McCullough ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sports Medicine ◽  
National Football League ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Practical Implementation ◽  
Artificial Turf ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Surface Design ◽  
Common Misconception ◽  
Synthetic Turf

Context: Synthetic turf has become an increasingly common playing surface for athletics and has changed dramatically since its introduction more than 50 years ago. Along with changes to surface design, maintenance needs and recommendations have become more standardized and attentive both to upkeep and player-level factors. In particular, synthetic turf maintenance as it relates to athlete health and safety is an important consideration at all levels of play. Evidence Acquisition: A literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed for publications between the years 1990 and 2018 was conducted. Keywords included s ynthetic turf, artificial turf, field turf, and playing surface. Additionally, expert opinion through systematic interviews and practical implementation were obtained on synthetic turf design and maintenance practices in the National Football League. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: Synthetic turf has changed considerably since its inception. Playing surface is a critical component of the athletic environment, playing a role both in performance and in athlete safety. There are several important structural considerations of third-generation synthetic turf systems currently used in the United States that rely heavily on strong and consistent maintenance. A common misconception is that synthetic turf is maintenance free; in fact, however, these surfaces require routine maintenance. Whether athletes experience more injuries on synthetic over natural surfaces is also of interest among various levels and types of sport. Conclusion: Modern synthetic turf is far different than when originally introduced. It requires routine maintenance, even at the level of local athletics. It is important for sports medicine personnel to be familiar with playing surface issues as they are often treating athletes at the time of injury and should maintain a level of awareness of contemporary research and practices regarding the relationships between synthetic turf and injury.

Impact of third generation synthetic turf athletic field age on surface hardness and infill depth spatial variability

2021 ◽  
pp. 175433712110029
Author(s):  
Kyley H Dickson ◽  
Chase M Straw ◽  
Adam W Thoms ◽  
Troy D Carson ◽  
John C Sorochan
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Variability ◽  
National Football League ◽  
Fiber Type ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Surface Hardness ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Athletic Fields ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time ◽  
Synthetic Turf

The use of synthetic turf (ST) has become a popular option for many athletic fields. Little is known about how surface hardness and infill depth spatial variability changes over time on third generation (3G) ST athletic fields. A research study was conducted to investigate the impact of field age on surface hardness and infill depth spatial variability from 12 3G ST athletic fields in Tennessee and Georgia (USA) between March 5, 2014 and April 8, 2014. The 3G ST athletic fields tested varied in fiber type including monofilament, slit film, and a combination of monofilament with slit film fibers. All 3G ST athletic fields were directly over gravel with no shockpad present. Surface hardness and infill depth were collected in the same location on all fields. Surface hardness was collected with the Toro Mobile Tester (400–450 samples/field) and infill depth was collected manually with a three-prong infill depth gauge (200–225 samples/field). As field age increased, surface hardness and spatial variability of the surface hardness increased significantly. Surface hardness and infill depth also had a significant negative relationship with one another. The increase in mean surface hardness and variability is partially attributed to infill depth loss and compaction of the remaining infill. Infill depth did not have a significant relationship with age, unless plots were outside the manufacturer’s recommendation for infill depth. Considering the nearly 3000 samples collected in this study, maintaining a minimum infill depth between 30 and 35 mm kept 90% of surface hardness data points below the National Football League limit of 100 Gmax. Results from this study highlight how 3G ST athletic fields can change with age, which may indicate the need for targeted infill applications and decompaction to improve field uniformity over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document