Abrasion injuries on artificial turf: A systematic review

Abstract

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.

“Nothing Beats Nature”: Park Visitor Preferences for Natural Turfgrass and Artificial Turf: A Case Study

“…Although individuals viewed artificial turf as having more traction, especially in wet conditions, previous research suggested that artificial turf surfaces can have too much traction, which can lead to increased incidences of lower limb injuries (Kent et al 2021;Villwock et al 2009). Abrasion-type injuries are common to multiple sports and activities and were perceived by individuals in this study and past research as being more likely to occur on artificial turf than on natural turfgrass surfaces (Poulos et al 2014;Twomey et al 2019).…”

A new model of third generation artificial turf degradation, maintenance interventions and benefits

“…In 3G AT systems manufacturers of yarn and carpets have increasingly attempted to innovate systems with a softer ‘feel’ to reduce concerns around player skin burns. 21 However, less abrasive and softer fibres have greater susceptibility to permanently flatten, consequently many currently used fibres incorporate a stiffening structure such as a spine, somewhat mimicking natural turf leaf.…”

Characterizing the spaces of consumer value experience in value co-creation and value co-destruction

“…In The Netherlands, artificial pitches have become increasingly popular, especially among amateur football clubs; they require little maintenance and are robust enough for use throughout the year, including the winter season. According to the sports and health literature, artificial pitches offer both advantages (for instance, the evenness and conservation of the pitch) and disadvantages (for example, skin abrasions or muscle strains) (Burillo et al, 2014;Twomey et al, 2019). Although largely considered an attractive alternative to natural grass pitches, artificial pitches have recently been criticized by experts in the press (Fritschy, 2019;Zembla, 2017bZembla, , 2017aZembla, , 2016 and their status is currently considered controversial.…”