Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2003 Jun;38(2):120-125.

Face-Mask Removal: Movement and Time Associated With Cutting of the Loop Straps

Affiliations

Face-Mask Removal: Movement and Time Associated With Cutting of the Loop Straps

Erik E. Swartz et al. J Athl Train. 2003 Jun.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the amount of helmet movement, time for task completion, tool satisfaction, and overall efficiency for various face-mask removal tools during football helmet face-mask removal. DESIGN AND SETTING: Each subject performed one trial with the anvil pruner (AP), Face Mask Extractor (FME), PVC pipe cutter (PVC), and Trainer's Angel (TA). Each subject cut through 4 loop straps and removed the face mask while kneeling behind the athlete's head. SUBJECTS: Twenty-nine certified athletic trainers (age = 29.5 +/- 6.2 years, athletic training experience = 6.3 +/- 5.0 years). MEASUREMENTS: Time to complete the task was recorded. Total range of motion and total movement of the helmet were assessed using a 6-camera, 3-dimensional motion-capture system. Satisfaction scores were measured for each subject for each tool. Efficiency scores were calculated using time and total helmet-movement data. RESULTS: When using the FME, subjects were significantly faster than with all other tools (P <.05), and when using the AP and TA, they were significantly faster than with the PVC. No differences were noted between tools in either movement variable. Significant differences were noted for satisfaction (P <.05) for all comparisons except TA versus AP. Efficiency scores were FME, 11.6; AP, 14.3; TA, 14.5; and PVC, 22.9, with lower scores identifying increased efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: In general, subjects using the FME were superior in all variables except the movement variables. Future researchers should assess the removal task using specific protocols to determine whether the tools truly differ in terms of the movement created.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Total range of motion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Total movement.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Movement sample. Arrows represent average time for each tool. Box represents the time, or “window,” for motion-capture data.

References

    1. Winkelstein BA, Myers BS. The biomechanics of cervical spine injury and implications for injury prevention. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(suppl 7):S249–S255. - PubMed
    1. Torg JS, Thibault L, Sennett B, Pavlov H. The pathomechanics and pathophysiology of cervical spinal cord injury. Clin Orthop. 1995;321:259–269. - PubMed
    1. Nightingale RW, Camacho DL, Armstrong AJ, Robinette JJ, Myers BS. Inertial properties and loading rates affect buckling modes and injury mechanisms in the cervical spine. J Biomech. 2000;33:191–197. - PubMed
    1. Nightingale RW, McElhaney JH, Richardson WJ, Myers BS. Dynamic responses of the head and cervical spine to axial impact loading. J Biomech. 1996;29:307–318. - PubMed
    1. Nightingale RW, McElhaney JH, Richardson WJ, Best TM, Myers BS. Experimental impact injury to the cervical spine: relating motion of the head and the mechanism of injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:412–421. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources