Swartz Erik E, Armstrong Charles W, Rankin James M, Rogers Burton
University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.
J Athl Train. 2002 Jun;37(2):178-184.
To evaluate the performance of specific face-mask removal tools during football helmet face-mask retraction using 3-dimensional (3-D) video. DESIGN AND SETTING: Four different tools were used: the anvil pruner (AP), polyvinyl chloride pipe cutters (PVC), Face Mask (FM) Extractor (FME), and Trainer's Angel (TA). Subjects retracted a face mask once with each tool. SUBJECTS: Eleven certified athletic trainers served as subjects and were recruited from among local sports medicine professionals. MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed a sample of movement by 3-D techniques during the retraction process. Movement of the head in 3 planes and time to retract the face mask were also assessed. All results were analyzed with a simple repeated-measures one-way multivariate analysis of variance. An overall efficiency score was calculated for each tool. RESULTS: The AP allowed subjects to perform the face-mask removal task the fastest. Face mask removal with the AP was significantly faster than with the PVC and TA and significantly faster with the TA than the PVC. The PVC and AP created significantly more movement than the FME and TA when planes were combined. No significant differences were noted among tools for flexion-extension, rotation, or lateral flexion. The AP had an efficiency score of 14; FME, 15; TA, 18; and PVC, 35. CONCLUSIONS: The subjects performed the face-mask removal task in the least amount of time with the AP. They completed the task with the least amount of combined movement using the FME. The AP and FME had nearly identical overall efficiency scores for movement and time.
使用三维(3-D)视频评估在橄榄球头盔面罩回缩过程中特定面罩移除工具的性能。
使用了四种不同的工具:砧式剪钳(AP)、聚氯乙烯管割刀(PVC)、面罩(FM)提取器(FME)和训练师天使(TA)。受试者使用每种工具各回缩一次面罩。
11名获得认证的运动训练师作为受试者,从当地运动医学专业人员中招募。
我们在回缩过程中通过三维技术分析了一个运动样本。还评估了头部在三个平面上的运动以及回缩面罩的时间。所有结果均采用简单重复测量单因素多变量方差分析进行分析。计算了每种工具的总体效率得分。
AP使受试者能够最快地完成面罩移除任务。使用AP移除面罩的速度明显快于使用PVC和TA,且使用TA移除面罩的速度明显快于使用PVC。当合并平面时,PVC和AP产生的运动明显多于FME和TA。在屈伸、旋转或侧屈方面,各工具之间未观察到显著差异。AP的效率得分为14;FME为15;TA为18;PVC为35。
受试者使用AP以最少的时间完成了面罩移除任务。他们使用FME以最少的联合运动量完成了任务。AP和FME在运动和时间方面的总体效率得分几乎相同。