The influence of playing surface on injury risk in italian elite rugby players

Abstract

SummaryBackground: 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.

Influence of the structural components of artificial turf systems on impact attenuation in amateur football players

“…Recently, it has been suggested that artificial turf causes higher rate of foot injuries, especially midfoot and toe fractures including dislocations 46 . These type of injuries are considered overuse injuries, which were higher on World Rugby certified third generation artificial turf compared to natural grass in elite rugby players 47 . Thus, overuse injuries and playing surface could be linked due to different traction and cushioning characteristics between surfaces 47 .…”

“…These type of injuries are considered overuse injuries, which were higher on World Rugby certified third generation artificial turf compared to natural grass in elite rugby players 47 . Thus, overuse injuries and playing surface could be linked due to different traction and cushioning characteristics between surfaces 47 . Ranson, George, Rafferty, Miles and Moore 46 suggested that the highest foot injuries could be related to the greater traction, stiffness and rotational torque shown on artificial turf in comparison with natural grass.…”

“…In this study, ATS1 and ATS2 shown a lower force reduction and vertical deformation in comparison to ATS3. According to the results, the stiffness of the surface influence on the impact attenuation and could determine the kinetic and kinematic movement of the football players, causing different physiological and metabolic responses 44,48 where each playing surface could have its own characteristics of injury patterns depending on its structural characteristics 47,49 .…”

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

“…While these studies, among others, have begun to sort out differences in some athlete populations, a full understanding of the difference in injury risk is complicated by the size and power of the studies as well as differences among sexes, sport, level of competition, weather, footwear, and variations in the playing surfaces themselves, including maintenance. 26,34-36,46,47,53,54…”

Strategies used by professional rugby union clubs to manage players for artificial turf exposure

“…In rugby union, Fuller et al [ 5 ] examined match injuries in six elite men’s teams in Hong Kong over two seasons and reported no differences in incidence between surface types aside from a small, but not statistically significant increase in ACL injury risk (n=6; rate ratio=3.82; p=0.222). Another study comparing single season injury characteristics between two professional teams, one with World Rugby third generation certified artificial turf and the other with natural grass, found no difference in acute injury incidence between surfaces; however, overuse injuries appeared more likely on the artificial pitch during matches and in training [ 6 ] . Williams et al [ 7 ] conducted a small prospective cohort study in the highest level of professional rugby in England (Premiership) and, in a sample based on a single pitch, found no clear differences in injury incidence, severity, or burden between surface types.…”