Role of Shoe–Surface Interaction and Noncontact ACL Injuries

  • Ariel V. Dowling
  • Thomas P. Andriacchi


This chapter presents the evidence regarding one of the environmental factors affecting a female athlete’s risk of noncontact ACL injury, shoe–surface interaction. This interaction is defined as the coefficient of friction (COF) between the athlete’s shoe and the surface. There are three factors that may affect the COF of the shoe–surface interaction: the intrinsic shoe properties, the intrinsic surface properties, and the weather conditions during the time of play. Furthermore, increased COF conditions are associated with higher ACL injury rates than decreased COF conditions. Additionally, increasing the COF of the shoe–surface interaction causes an athlete to alter her movement techniques in specific ways that increase the risk of ACL injury, providing a biomechanical basis for the increased incidence of ACL injuries observed on high COF surfaces.


Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Female Athlete Wood Floor Natural Grass Release Coefficient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Aoki H, Kohno T, Fujiya H et al (2010) Incidence of injury among adolescent soccer players: a comparative study of artificial and natural grass turfs. Clin J Sport Med 20(1):1–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arnason A, Gudmundsson A, Dahl HA et al (1996) Soccer injuries in Iceland. Scand J Med Sci Sports 6(1):40–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dowling AV, Corazza S, Chaudhari AM et al (2010) Shoe-surface friction influences movement strategies during a sidestep cutting task: implications for anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Am J Sports Med 38(3):478–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dragoo JL, Braun HJ (2010) The effect of playing surface on injury rate: a review of the current literature. Sports Med 40(11):981–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drakos MC, Hillstrom H, Voos JE et al (2010) The effect of the shoe–surface interface in the development of anterior cruciate ligament strain. J Biomech Eng 132(1):011003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekstrand J, Nigg BM (1989) Surface-related injuries in soccer. Sports Med 8(1):56–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekstrand J, Timpka T, Hagglund M (2006) Risk of injury in elite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: a prospective two-cohort study. Br J Sports Med 40(12):975–980PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elbert G (1998) The physics hyperbook: friction. Accessed on 15 Feb 2012
  9. 9.
    Fuller CW, Dick RW, Corlette J et al (2007) Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 1: match injuries. Br J Sports Med 41(Suppl 1):i20–i26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fuller CW, Dick RW, Corlette J et al (2007) Comparison of the incidence, nature and cause of injuries sustained on grass and new generation artificial turf by male and female football players. Part 2: training injuries. Br J Sports Med 41(Suppl 1):i27–i32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gabbett T, Minbashian A, Finch C (2007) Influence of environmental and ground conditions on injury risk in rugby league. J Sci Med Sport 10(4):211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heidt RS Jr, Dormer SG, Cawley PW et al (1996) Differences in friction and torsional resistance in athletic shoe-turf surface interfaces. Am J Sports Med 24(6):834–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoff GL, Martin TA (1986) Outdoor and indoor soccer: injuries among youth players. Am J Sports Med 14(3):231–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    James IT, Mcleod AJ (2010) The effect of maintenance on the performance of sand-filled synthetic turf surfaces. Sports Technol 3(1):43–51Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jamison S, Lee C (1989) The incidence of female hockey injuries on grass and synthetic playing surfaces. Aust J Sci Med Sport 21(2):15–17Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaila R (2007) Influence of modern studded and bladed soccer boots and sidestep cutting on knee loading during match play conditions. Am J Sports Med 35(9):1528–1536PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambson RB, Barnhill BS, Higgins RW (1996) Football cleat design and its effect on anterior cruciate ligament injuries. A three-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med 24(2):155–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Livesay GA, Reda DR, Nauman EA (2006) Peak torque and rotational stiffness developed at the shoe-surface interface: the effect of shoe type and playing surface. Am J Sports Med 34(3):415–422PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meyers MC, Barnhill BS (2004) Incidence, causes, and severity of high school football injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass: a 5-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med 32(7):1626–1638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyers MC (2010) Incidence, mechanisms, and severity of game-related college football injuries on FieldTurf versus natural grass: a 3-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med 38(4):687–697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nigg BM, Segesser B (1988) The influence of playing surfaces on the load on the locomotor system and on football and tennis injuries. Sports Med 5(6):375–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olsen OE, Myklebust G, Engebretsen L et al (2003) Relationship between floor type and risk of ACL injury in team handball. Scand J Med Sci Sports 13(5):299–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Orchard J (2002) Is there a relationship between ground and climatic conditions and injuries in football? Sports Med 32(7):419–432PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orchard JW, Chivers I, Aldous D et al (2005) Rye grass is associated with fewer non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries than Bermuda grass. Br J Sports Med 39(10):704–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Orchard JW, Powell JW (2003) Risk of knee and ankle sprains under various weather conditions in American football. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35(7):1118–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orchard J, Seward H, McGivern J et al (2001) Intrinsic and extrinsic risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injury in Australian footballers. Am J Sports Med 29(2):196–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pasanen K, Parkkari J, Rossi L et al (2008) Artificial playing surface increases the injury risk in pivoting indoor sports: a prospective one-season follow-up study in Finnish female floorball. Br J Sports Med 42(3):194–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pedroza A, Fernandez S, Heidt R Jr et al (2010) Evaluation of the shoe-surface interaction using an agility maneuver. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42(9):1754–1759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pope RP (2002) Rubber matting on an obstacle course causes anterior cruciate ligament ruptures and its removal eliminates them. Mil Med 167(4):355–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pope RP (2002) Injury surveillance and systematic investigation identify a rubber matting hazard for anterior cruciate ligament rupture on an obstacle course. Mil Med 167(4):359–362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Powell JW, Schootman M (1992) A multivariate risk analysis of selected playing surfaces in the National Football League: 1980 to 1989. An epidemiologic study of knee injuries. Am J Sports Med 20(6):686–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Queen RM, Charnock BL, Garrett WE Jr et al (2008) A comparison of cleat types during two football-specific tasks on FieldTurf. Br J Sports Med 42(4):278–284; discussion 284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Scranton PE Jr, Whitesel JP, Powell JW et al (1997) A review of selected noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in the National Football League. Foot Ankle Int 18(12):772–776PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheehan B (2011) Artificial grass for sport. Bindweld plastics and Bigprint. Accessed on 15 Feb 2012
  35. 35.
    Skovron ML, Levy IM, Agel J (1990) Living with artificial grass: a knowledge update. Part 2: epidemiology. Am J Sports Med 18(5):510–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Soligard T, Bahr R, Andersen TE (2012) Injury risk on artificial turf and grass in youth tournament football. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Jun;22(3):356–361.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01174.x. Epub 2010 Aug 24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steffen K, Andersen TE, Bahr R (2007) Risk of injury on artificial turf and natural grass in young female football players. Br J Sports Med 41(Suppl 1):i33–i37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Torg JS, Quedenfeld T (1971) Effect of shoe type and cleat length on incidence and severity of knee injuries among high school football players. Res Q 42(2):203–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Torg JS, Quedenfeld TC, Landau S (1974) The shoe-surface interface and its relationship to football knee injuries. J Sports Med 2(5):261–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Torg JS, Stilwell G, Rogers K (1996) The effect of ambient temperature on the shoe-surface interface release coefficient. Am J Sports Med 24(1):79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Villwock MR, Meyer EG, Powell JW et al (2009) Football playing surface and shoe design affect rotational traction. Am J Sports Med 37(3):518–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wannop JW, Worobets JT, Stefanyshyn DJ (2010) Footwear traction and lower extremity joint loading. Am J Sports Med 38(6):1221–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams S, Hume PA, Kara S (2011) A review of football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs compared with natural turf. Sports Med 41(11):903–923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wright JM, Webner D (2010) Playing field issues in sports medicine. Curr Sports Med Rep 9(3):129–133PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryStanford University Medical CenterStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Bone and Joint Center, Palo Alto VAPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations