Incidence of football injuries sustained on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ilari Kuitunen; Ville Immonen; Oskari Pakarinen; Ville M Mattila; Ville T Ponkilainen

doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101956

Incidence of football injuries sustained on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces: a systematic review and meta-analysis

EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Apr 13:59:101956. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101956. eCollection 2023 May.

Authors

Ilari Kuitunen^{1

2

3}, Ville Immonen³, Oskari Pakarinen⁴, Ville M Mattila^{4

5}, Ville T Ponkilainen⁶

Affiliations

¹ Institute of Clinical Medicine and Department of Paediatrics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
² Department of Paediatrics, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland.
³ Boys National Teams, The Finnish Football Association, Helsinki, Finland.
⁴ Faculty of Medicine and Health Technologies, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
⁵ Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.
⁶ Department of Surgery, Central Finland Hospital Nova, Jyväskylä, Finland.

Abstract

Background: Prior reviews have not conducted statistical synthesis of injury incidence on artificial turf in football. To analyse and compare the incidence of injuries sustained playing football (soccer) on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces.

Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases in October 2022 without filters. All observational studies (prospective or retrospective) that analysed injuries sustained playing football on artificial turf and which included a control group that played on grass or other surface were included. Studies were included if they reported the number of injuries and the exposure time for the playing surfaces. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random effects model was used to calculate the pooled incidence rate ratios (IRR) with 95% confidence intervals. Protocol was registered with PROSPERO on October 30th, 2022. Registration number: CRD42022371414.

Findings: We screened 1447 studies, and evaluated 67 full reports, and finally included 22 studies. Risk of bias was a notable issue, as only 5 of the 22 studies adjusted their analysis for potential confounders. Men (11 studies: IRR 0.82, CI 0.72-0.94) and women (5 studies: IRR 0.83, CI 0.76-0.91) had lower injury incidence on artificial turf. Professional players had a lower incidence of injury (8 studies: IRR 0.79, CI 0.70-0.90) on artificial turf, whereas there was no evidence of differences in the incidence of injury in amateur players (8 studies: IRR 0.91, CI 0.77-1.09). The incidence of pelvis/thigh (10 studies: IRR 0.72, CI 0.57-0.90), and knee injuries (14 studies: IRR 0.77, CI 0.64-0.92) were lower on artificial turf.

Interpretation: The overall incidence of football injuries is lower on artificial turf than on grass. Based on these findings, the risk of injury can't be used as an argument against artificial turf when considering the optimal playing surface for football.

Funding: No specific funding was received for this study.

Keywords: Athletes; Epidemiology; Football; Incidence; Injury; Playing surface; Sports medicine.