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

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

Ilari Kuitunen  1   2   3 , Ville Immonen  3 , Oskari Pakarinen  4 , Ville M Mattila  4   5 , Ville T Ponkilainen  6
Affiliations

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

Ilari Kuitunen et al. EClinicalMedicine. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study selection process.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Forest plot of the incidence of overall injuries on artificial turf compared to grass stratified by sex.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of the incidence rate ratios of overall injuries on artificial turf compared to other playing surfaces.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the injury incidence rate ratios on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces stratified between professional and amateur players.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of the injury incidence rate ratios on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces stratified by matches and training sessions.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the injury incidence rate ratios on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces stratified by injury mechanism (contact vs non-contact).
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest plot of the injury incidence rate ratios on artificial turf compared to grass and other playing surfaces stratified by injury type (fracture, sprain, ligament injury).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Oja P., Titze S., Kokko S., et al. Health benefits of different sport disciplines for adults: systematic review of observational and intervention studies with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015 Apr;49(7):434–440. - PubMed
    1. FIFA quality programme for football turf, 2021 [cited 2023 Jan 9]. Available from: https://www.fifa.com/en/technical/football-technology/standards/football....
    1. Ryan A.J. Artificial vs natural turf. Phys Sportsmed. 1979;7(5):39–53. - PubMed
    1. Zalewski: “Bodo/Glimt artificial turf unimaginable for a quarter-final” - football Italia [Internet]. 2022. https://football-italia.net/zalewski-bodo-glimt-artificial-turf-unimagin... [cited 2023 Jan 9]. Available from:
    1. Xiao M., Lemos J.L., Hwang C.E., Sherman S.L., Safran M.R., Abrams G.D. Increased risk of ACL injury for female but not male soccer players on artificial turf versus natural grass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022;10(8) - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources