Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Am J Sports Med. 2023 May;51(6):1615-1621. doi: 10.1177/03635465211069562. Epub 2022 May 20.
No study has provided a comprehensive systematic review of sports injuries on artificial turf versus natural grass.
To comprehensively examine the risk of overall injuries and multiple types of lower extremity injuries across all sports, all levels of competition, and on both old-generation and new-generation artificial turf.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
A systematic review of the English-language literature was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All included articles compared overall injury rates or lower extremity (hip, knee, or foot and ankle) injury rates on artificial turf and natural grass. All sports, levels of competition, and turf types were included. Studies were excluded if they did not include overall injury rates or lower extremity injury rates. Because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, no attempt was made to aggregate risk ratios to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis.
A total of 53 articles published between 1972 and 2020 were identified for study inclusion. Most studies on new-generation turf (13/18 articles) found similar overall injury rates between playing surfaces. When individual anatomic injury locations were analyzed, the greatest proportion of articles reported a higher foot and ankle injury rate on artificial turf compared with natural grass, both with old-generation (3/4 articles) and new-generation (9/19 articles) turf. Similar knee and hip injury rates were reported between playing surfaces for soccer athletes on new-generation turf, but football players, particularly those at high levels of competition, were more likely to sustain a knee injury on artificial turf than on natural grass.
The available body of literature suggests a higher rate of foot and ankle injuries on artificial turf, both old-generation and new-generation turf, compared with natural grass. High-quality studies also suggest that the rates of knee injuries and hip injuries are similar between playing surfaces, although elite-level football athletes may be more predisposed to knee injuries on artificial turf compared with natural grass. Only a few articles in the literature reported a higher overall injury rate on natural grass compared with artificial turf, and all of these studies received financial support from the artificial turf industry.
目前尚无研究对人造草坪与天然草坪上的运动损伤进行全面系统的综述。
全面检查所有运动、所有竞技水平和新旧两代人造草坪上的整体损伤和多种下肢损伤的风险。
系统评价;证据水平,3 级。
根据 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南对英文文献进行系统回顾。所有纳入的文章均比较了人造草坪和天然草坪上的整体损伤率或下肢(臀部、膝部或足踝部)损伤率。包括所有运动、竞技水平和草皮类型。如果研究未包括整体损伤率或下肢损伤率,则将其排除在外。由于纳入研究的异质性,未尝试汇总风险比以进行定量荟萃分析。
共确定了 53 篇发表于 1972 年至 2020 年的研究文章。大多数关于新一代草皮的研究(18 篇文章中的 13 篇)发现两种场地的整体损伤率相似。当分析个别解剖损伤部位时,大多数文章报告人造草坪的足踝部损伤率高于天然草坪,新旧两代草皮均如此(4 篇文章中的 3 篇和 19 篇文章中的 9 篇)。对于新一代草皮上的足球运动员,报道的膝关节和髋关节损伤率相似,但足球运动员,尤其是高水平比赛的运动员,更有可能在人造草坪上发生膝关节损伤,而不是在天然草坪上。
现有文献表明,与天然草坪相比,新旧两代人造草坪的足踝部损伤发生率更高。高质量研究还表明,两种场地的膝关节和髋关节损伤率相似,但与天然草坪相比,精英级足球运动员在人造草坪上更易发生膝关节损伤。文献中只有少数几篇文章报道天然草坪的整体损伤率高于人造草坪,而且所有这些研究都得到了人造草坪行业的资助。