SPORTS INJURIES: ASTROTURF AND NATURAL GRASS

Does synthetic turf increase the risk of sports injuries as compared with natural grass?

Does synthetic turf increase the risk of sports injuries as compared with natural grass?

Introduction

Astroturf was developed as a short-pile carpet with pad laid over a concrete surface. The advantage for the stadium owners was the very low maintenance costs. However, since its introduction many coaches, players and administrators have complained that artificial turf leads to a greater number of injuries. They feel that increased friction found with Astroturf type fields leads to increased knee injuries (Steffen, 2007).

They also feel that the hardness of the Astroturf surface causes more head injures, especially concussions. As a result, many facilities soon removed the Astroturf fields and replaced them with natural grass (Naunheim, 2007).

Sports Injuries

With the increasing popularity of youth sports, especially soccer, and the necessity for building more and more athletic fields, many communities are considering constructing synthetic (or artificial turf) athletic fields. Even the Arkansas Razorbacks are considering the move as outlined in a recent article published on January 17, 2009 in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette by (Naunheim, 2006) titled “Artificial surface is coach's desire.” Yesterday's artificial turf is much different than today's synthetic in-fill systems in that the new in-fill technology creates a field that looks much more like the real thing (natural grass).

Providing a playing surface compatible with player safety is a primary concern for any sporting venue. For professional football and soccer, injuries can cost a team the season or end a star player's career (Meyers, 2008). What types of trauma are most prevalent on synthetic playing surfaces? Do artificial fields compromise players' safety or protect them from severe damage?

There is a lack of research comparing injuries incurred on new in-fill artificial fields vs. natural grass fields (5). There are data indicating that the traditional artificial turf fields increased athlete injury, primarily due to increased surface hardness (Livesay, 2006).

Although actual data are not available, anecdotal data are available from NFL players. Players were asked in a 2006 survey “Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on? Five-percent felt like natural grass systems increased fatigue, while 74% felt that artificial turf systems were more responsible for fatigue (5). Twenty-one percent felt they were the same (Guskiewicz, 2007). In the open comments section of the survey, the most common comment was “make all fields grass to prevent injuries.”

An aspect of synthetic turf that is now receiving increased scrutiny is the potential for increased incidences of infections among players that play primarily on in-fill systems. In a report titled “Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection from Turf”, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals (Fuller, 2007).

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta reported a rate for the general population of 32 in 100,000. These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the ...