J Sport Rehabil. 2020 Nov 1;29(8):1166-1170. doi: 10.1123/jsr.2019-0327. Epub 2020 Feb 5.
The influence of playing surface on injury risk in soccer is contentious, and contemporary technologies permit an in vivo assessment of mechanical loading on the player.
To quantify the influence of playing surface on the PlayerLoad elicited during soccer-specific activity.
Repeated measures, field-based design.
Regulation soccer pitches.
Fifteen amateur soccer players (22.1 [2.4] y), injury free with ≥6 years competitive experience.
Each player completed randomized order trials of a soccer-specific field test on natural turf, astroturf, and third-generation artificial turf. GPS units were located at C7 and the mid-tibia of each leg to measure triaxial acceleration (100 Hz).
Total accumulated PlayerLoad in each movement plane was calculated for each trial. Ratings of perceived exertion and visual analog scales assessing lower-limb muscle soreness were measured as markers of fatigue.
Analysis of variance revealed no significant main effect for playing surface on total PlayerLoad (P = .55), distance covered (P = .75), or postexercise measures of ratings of perceived exertion (P = .98) and visual analog scales (P = .61). There was a significant main effect for GPS location (P < .001), with lower total loading elicited at C7 than mid-tibia (P < .001), but with no difference between limbs (P = .70). There was no unit placement × surface interaction (P = .98). There was also a significant main effect for GPS location on the relative planar contributions to loading (P < .001). Relative planar contributions to loading in the anterioposterior:mediolateral:vertical planes was 25:27:48 at C7 and 34:32:34 at mid-tibia.
PlayerLoad metrics suggest that playing surface does not influence mechanical loading during soccer-specific activity (not including tackling). Clinical reasoning should consider that PlayerLoad magnitude and axial contributions were sensitive to unit placement, highlighting opportunities in the objective monitoring of load during rehabilitation.
关于足球运动中场地对受伤风险的影响一直存在争议，而当代技术可以对运动员的机械负荷进行活体评估。
量化足球专项活动中场地对运动员所受负荷的影响。
重复测量、现场设计。
标准足球场。
15 名业余足球运动员（22.1[2.4]岁），无受伤史且具有至少 6 年的竞技经验。
每位运动员在天然草皮、人工草皮和第三代人工草皮上完成随机顺序的足球专项场测试。GPS 单元位于 C7 和每条腿的中间胫骨，以测量三轴加速度（100Hz）。
为每个试验计算每个运动平面的总累积运动员负荷。感知用力等级和视觉模拟量表评估下肢肌肉酸痛作为疲劳的标志物。
方差分析显示，场地对总运动员负荷（P=0.55）、跑动距离（P=0.75）或运动后感知用力等级（P=0.98）和视觉模拟量表（P=0.61）的测量值无显著主效应。GPS 位置有显著的主效应（P<0.001），C7 处的总负荷明显低于中间胫骨（P<0.001），但四肢之间没有差异（P=0.70）。GPS 位置与表面之间没有相互作用（P=0.98）。GPS 位置对加载的相对平面贡献也有显著的主效应（P<0.001）。加载在前后：左右：垂直平面的相对平面贡献分别为 C7 处的 25:27:48 和中间胫骨处的 34:32:34。
运动员负荷指标表明，在足球专项活动中（不包括铲球），场地不会影响机械负荷。临床推理应考虑到运动员负荷的大小和轴向贡献对单元位置敏感，这为康复过程中的负荷客观监测提供了机会。
