Peak Torque and Rotational Stiffness Developed at the Shoe-Surface Interface

Background Shoe-surface interactions have been implicated in the high number of noncontact knee injuries suffered by athletes at all levels. Purpose To examine shoe-surface interactions on newer field designs and compare these with more traditional shoe-surface combinations. The peak torque and rotational stiffness (the rate at which torque is developed under rotation) were determined. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods A device was constructed to measure the torque versus applied rotation developed between different shoe-surface combinations. Data were collected on 5 different playing surfaces (natural grass, Astroturf, 2 types of Astroplay, and FieldTurf), using 2 types of shoes (grass and turf), under a compressive load of 333 N. Results The highest peak torques were developed by the grass shoe–FieldTurf tray and the turf shoe–Astroturf field combinations. The lowest peak torques were developed on the grass field. The turf shoe–Astroturf combination exhibited a rotational stiffness nearly double that of any other shoe-surface combinations. Conclusion The differences in the rotational stiffness across all 10 shoe-surface combinations were greater than those of the peak torques. It is possible that rotational stiffness may provide a new criterion for the evaluation of shoe-surface interface. Clinical Relevance An improved understanding of shoe-surface interactions remains a critical need to improve the design of shoe-surface combinations with the goal of meeting player needs while minimizing injury potential.

[1]  C A Morehouse,et al.  Torques developed by different types of shoes on various playing surfaces. , 1975, Medicine and science in sports.

[2]  J S Torg,et al.  Effect of shoe type and cleat length on incidence and severity of knee injuries among high school football players. , 1971, Research quarterly.

[3]  D. J. Rheinstein,et al.  Effects on traction of outsole composition and hardnesses of basketball shoes and three types of playing surfaces. , 1978, Medicine and science in sports.

[4]  P. Renström,et al.  Torque developed at simulated sliding between sport shoes and an artificial turf , 1986, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  Rheinstein Dj,et al.  Effects on traction of outsole composition and hardnesses of basketball shoes and three types of playing surfaces. , 1978 .

[6]  J S Torg,et al.  The shoe-surface interface and its relationship to football knee injuries , 1974, The Journal of sports medicine.

[7]  John Orchard,et al.  Is There a Relationship Between Ground and Climatic Conditions and Injuries in Football? , 2002, Sports medicine.

[8]  M. Howard,et al.  Differences in Friction and Torsional Resistance in Athletic Shoe-Turf Surface Interfaces , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  Ronald F. Zernicke,et al.  Biomechanics of musculoskeletal injury , 1998 .

[10]  J. Garrick,et al.  Football cleat design and its effect on anterior cruciate ligament injuries. , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  T. Hewett,et al.  Noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries: risk factors and prevention strategies. , 2000, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[12]  J S Torg,et al.  The Effect of Ambient Temperature on the Shoe-Surface interface Release Coefficient , 1996, The American journal of sports medicine.