1. Introduction

Introduction

The main function of a sport surface is to ensure safety and adequate player performance during physical exercise practice [1]. One of the most important goals in sport surface construction is to improve sport performance [2]. The constant improvement of sport surfaces like artificial turf is motivated by the demands of the sport sector, as the quality of sport surfaces is considered a determining factor for achieving results [3]. It has been suggested that changes in sport surfaces can have effects on performance patterns and athlete injury [4]. Various studies have proven a relation between the elasticity of a sport surface and athletes’ performance [5].

One of the most important goals in sport surface construction is to improve sport performance ^[2]. The constant improvement of sport surfaces like artificial turf is motivated by the demands of the sport sector, as the quality of sport surfaces is considered a determining factor for achieving results ^[3]. It has been suggested that changes in sport surfaces can have effects on performance patterns and athlete injury ^[4]. Various studies have proven a relation between the elasticity of a sport surface and athletes’ performance ^[5].

Research on injury risk has shown contradictory results, although in general, the risk of injury appears to be equivalent on artificial turf and natural grass [6,7]. On the other hand, Plaza-Carmona et al. [8] have shown that bone mass is not affected by practicing football on natural or on artificial turf. Other studies have focused on biomechanical aspects. Alcaraz et al. [9] analyzed running speed kinetics on sand and on an athletic track, finding significant differences in players’ biomechanics. Previous researches have provided information on the influence of the structural components of artificial turf on its mechanical properties, like the study by Sánchez-Sánchez et al. [10], in which it was observed that a compact gravel sub-base extended surface durability, with adequate security parameters.

Research on injury risk has shown contradictory results, although in general, the risk of injury appears to be equivalent on artificial turf and natural grass ^[6][7]. On the other hand, Plaza-Carmona et al. ^[8] have shown that bone mass is not affected by practicing football on natural or on artificial turf. Other studies have focused on biomechanical aspects. Alcaraz et al. ^[9] analyzed running speed kinetics on sand and on an athletic track, finding significant differences in players’ biomechanics. Previous researches have provided information on the influence of the structural components of artificial turf on its mechanical properties, like the study by Sánchez-Sánchez et al. ^[10], in which it was observed that a compact gravel sub-base extended surface durability, with adequate security parameters.

Likewise, exercise on soft surfaces, like sand, is associated with higher energy expenditure and lower stimulus in impact training than on hard surfaces [11–13]. Brito et al. [14] measured higher levels of lactate and increased heart rate in football players during a simulated match on sand compared to artificial turf and hard surfaces. Other studies recommend sand as a training surface for improving neuromuscular adaptations [12,15]. In volleyball players, vertical jump was higher on a hard surface than on a soft surface [16,17].

Likewise, exercise on soft surfaces, like sand, is associated with higher energy expenditure and lower stimulus in impact training than on hard surfaces ^[11][12][13]. Brito et al. ^[14] measured higher levels of lactate and increased heart rate in football players during a simulated match on sand compared to artificial turf and hard surfaces. Other studies recommend sand as a training surface for improving neuromuscular adaptations ^[12][15]. In volleyball players, vertical jump was higher on a hard surface than on a soft surface ^[16][17].

Another common sport activity analyzed on different sport surfaces is sprint. It has been proven that the high absorption that occurs on sand surfaces limits the maximum speed [11,18]. Therefore, physical performance in sprint and jumping actions is influenced by traction, rigidity, and force reduction of the surface [19]. Studies like the one by Brechue et al. [20] analyzed the differences in speed during sprints on sand and on the track, showing a significant speed reduction on sand. However, no significant differences have been demonstrated in speed on artificial and natural turf, except when the sprinting action includes changes in direction, in which case, speed is higher on artificial turf [21]. Despite this, controversy exists, as the physiological demands of sprint on artificial and natural turf were found to be similar in some studies [22] or higher on natural surfaces in other works [23].

Another common sport activity analyzed on different sport surfaces is sprint. It has been proven that the high absorption that occurs on sand surfaces limits the maximum speed ^[11][18]. Therefore, physical performance in sprint and jumping actions is influenced by traction, rigidity, and force reduction of the surface ^[19]. Studies like the one by Brechue et al. ^[20] analyzed the differences in speed during sprints on sand and on the track, showing a significant speed reduction on sand. However, no significant differences have been demonstrated in speed on artificial and natural turf, except when the sprinting action includes changes in direction, in which case, speed is higher on artificial turf ^[21]. Despite this, controversy exists, as the physiological demands of sprint on artificial and natural turf were found to be similar in some studies ^[22] or higher on natural surfaces in other works ^[23].

The aim of this study was to analyze sprint performance on natural grass surfaces, artificial grass, and sand in football, rugby, hockey, and netball, through cross correlation studies. A systematic literature review was performed, gathering athletes’ speed performance and fatigue protocols, to evaluate the influence of the surface.

2. The EffecMat of Different Surfaces on Sprint Speed in Athleteerials and Methods

This study was completed in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [24]. A search strategy was developed to identify all relevant studies assessing the effect of different surfaces on sprint speed in athletes. The search was registered in PROSPERO. Our systematic search was conducted in different online databases: PubMed (whole database), SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science (whole database), since their inceptions until 17 March 2020. The terms used in the search of the databases were: (‘soccer’ OR ‘football’ OR ‘rugby’ OR ‘hockey’ OR ‘netball’) AND (performance OR assessment OR sprint OR speed) AND (‘artificial turf’ OR ‘synthetic’ OR ‘natural’ OR ‘grass’ OR ‘sand’ OR ‘playing surface’ OR field).

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the study.

3. PotRential Biasults

Figure 4. S

Standardized mean difference (SMD) between sprint time in: a) natural vs. artificial turf; b) natural turf vs. sand; c) natural turf pre- and post- sprint time assessment with different training methods; d) artificial turf pre- and post- sprint time assessment with different training methods; e) sand turf pre- and post- sprint time assessment with different training methods. Square represent the SMD for each trial. Diamonds represent the pooled SMD across trials.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the playing surface is a determining variable affecting the performance of sprint. Thanks to their qualitative improvement, artificial-turf pitches are similar to those in natural turf as regards their effect on sprint speed. The high impact andardized mebsorption of sand represents the main factor deteriorating sprint performance. Despite this, sand surfaces do not prevent improvements.

As for the limitation difs, of this study the high heterogeneity of the results observed when

comparing different surface (SMD) between spres may be due to the limited time available to produce force during sprint on each surface. Other meta-analyses have shown high heterogeneity of results when different methods were compared [25].

Future research must include cont time in: a) natural vs. rol variables to determine the effects of the structural characteristics of artificial- and natural-turf pitches, as well as their mechanical properties. However, the results of this meta-analysis do not show performance differences, in the case of sprint speed. In fact, the results show a better performance on artificial turf in some sub-groups. Previous studies showed that artificial turf also does not cause more injuries and can even reduce them [26]. Therefore, even though the effect of artificial turf; b) on speed could in principle affect a game result, until now, scientific investigation suggests that it is an ideal surface to substitute natural turf vsin unfavorable economic situations or adverse climates, without negative repercussions on sprint performances.

References

1. Fleming, P. Artificial turf sanystems for sport surfaces: Current knowledge and research needs. J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2011, 225, 43–63.

2. Baroud, G.; c) natural turf pNigg, B.; Stefanyshyn, D. Energy storage and return in sport surfaces. Sports Eng. 1999, 2, 173– 180.

3. Gallardo-Guerrero, L.; García- and postTascón, M.; Burillo-Naranjo, P. New sports management software: A needs analysis by a panel of Spanish experts. J. Inf. Manag. 2008, 28, 235–245.

4. Ekstrand, J.; Nigg, B.M. Surface-related sprinjuries in soccer. Sports Med. 1989, 8, 56–62.

5. Katkat, D.; Bulut, Y.; Demir, M.; Akar, S. Effects of different tisport surfaces on muscle performance. Biol. Sport. 2009, 26, 285–296.

6. Ekstrand, J.; Timpka, T.; Hägglund, M.; Karlsson, J. Risk of injury in e assesslite football played on artificial turf versus natural grass: A prospective two-cohort study.Br. J. Sports Med. 2006, 40, 975–980.

7. Fuller, C.W.; Dick, R.W.; Corlette, J.; Schmalz, R. Comparison of thent with d 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. 2007, 41, 20–26.

8. Plaza-Carmona, M.; Vicente-Rodríguez, G.; Martin-Garcia, M.; Burillo, P.; Felipe, J.L.; Mata, E.; Casajús, J.;Gallardo, L.; Ara, I. Infferent trluence of hard vs. soft ground surfaces on bone accretion in prepubertal footballers. Int. J. Sports Med. 2014, 35, 55–61.

9. Alcaraz, P.E.; Palao, J.M.; Elvining metra, J.L.; Linthorne, N.P. Effects of a sand running surface on the kinematics of sprinting at maximum velocity. Biol. Sport. 2011, 28, 95–100.

10. Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; Felipe, J.L.; Burillods; d), P.; Del Corral, J.; Gallardo, L. Effect of the structural components of support on the loss of mechanical properties of football fields of artificial turf pre-. J. Sports Eng. Technol. 2014, 228, 155–164.

11. Gaudino, P.; Gaudino, C.; Alberti, G.; Minetti, A.E. Biomechanics and predicted energetics ost- sprf sprinting on sand: Hints for soccer training. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 271–275.

12. Impellizzeri, F.M.; Rampint time assessmeini, E.; Castagna, C.; Martino, F.; Fiorini, S.; Wisloff, U. Effect of plyometric training on sand versus grass on muscle soreness and jumping and sprinting ability in soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 2008, 42, 42–46.

13. Zamparo, P.; Perini, R.; Orizio, C.; Sacher, M.; Ferrett wii, G. The energy cost of walking or running on sand. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 1992, 65, 183–187.

14. Brito, J.; Krustrup, P.; Rebelo, A. Th different trainie influence of the playing surface on the exercise intensity of smallsided recreational soccer games. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2012, 31, 946–956.

15. Mirzaei, B.; Norasteh, A.A.; Asadi, A. Neuromuscular adaptations to plyometric training met: Depth jump vs. countermovement jump on sand. Sport Sci. Heal. 2013, 9, 145–149.

16. Bishop, D. A comparison between lands; e) sand t and sand-based tests for beach volleyball assessment. J. sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2003, 43, 418–423.

17. Murfamatsu, S.; Fukudome, A.; Miyama, M.; Arimoto, M.; Kijima, A. Energy pre- and poexpenditure in maximal jumps on sand. J. Physiol. Anthropol. 2006, 25, 59–61.

18. Binnie, M.J.; Peeling, P.; Pinnington, H.; Landers, G.; Dawson, B. Effect- of surface-specific training on 20-m sprint time assessperformance on sand and grass surfaces. J Strength Cond. Res. 2013, 27, 3515–3520.

19. Sánchez-Sánchez, J.; García-Unanue, J.; Jiménent with different tz-Reyes, P.; Gallardo, A.; Burillo, P.; Felipe, J.L.; Gallardo, L. Influence of the mechanical properties of third-generation artificial turf systems on soccer players’ physiological and physical performance and their perceptions. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111368.

20. Brechue, W.F.; Maining methods. yhew, J.L.; Piper, F.C. Equipment and running surface alter sprint performance of college football players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 821.

21. Gains, G.L.; Sqwedenhjelm, A.N.; Mayhew, J.L.; Bird, H.M.; Houare represent ser, J.J. Comparison of speed and agility performance of college football players on field turf and natural grass. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2010, 24, 2613– 2617.

22. Sassi, A.; Stefanescu, A.; Menaspà, P.; Bosio, A.; Riggio, M.; Rampinini, E. The Scost of running on natural grass and artificial turf surfaces. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2011, 25, 606–611.

23. Di Michele, R.; D for each i Renzo, A.M.; Ammazzalorso, S.; Merni, F. Comparison of physiological responses to an incremental running test on treadmill, natural grass, and synthetic turf in young soccer players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2009, 23, 939–945.

24. Maher, C.G.; Sherrington, C.; Herial. Diamonds rbert, R.D.; Moseley, A.M.; Elkins, M. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys. Ther. 2003, 83, 713–721.

25. Katsanos, K.; Kitrou, P.; Spiliopoulos, S.; Maroulis, I.; Petsas, T.; Karnabatidis, D. Compresent the pooled SMDarative effectiveness of different transarterial embolization therapies alone or in combination with local ablative or adjuvant systemic treatments for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184597

26. Williams, S.; Hume, P.; Kacross trialsra, S. A review of football injuries on third and fourth generation artificial turfs compared with natural turf. Sports Med.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, the playing surface is a determining variable affecting the performance of sprint. Thanks to their qualitative improvement, artificial-turf pitches are similar to those in natural turf as regards their effect on sprint speed. The high impact absorption of sand represents the main factor deteriorating sprint performance. Despite this, sand surfaces do not prevent improvements.

As for the limitations, of this study the high heterogeneity of the results observed when comparing different surfaces may be due to the limited time available to produce force during sprint on each surface. Other meta-analyses have shown high heterogeneity of results when different methods were compared ^[25].

Future research must include control variables to determine the effects of the structural characteristics of artificial- and natural-turf pitches, as well as their mechanical properties. However, the results of this meta-analysis do not show performance differences, in the case of sprint speed. In fact, the results show a better performance on artificial turf in some sub-groups. Previous studies showed that artificial turf also does not cause more injuries and can even reduce them ^[26]. Therefore, even though the effect of artificial turf on speed could in principle affect a game result, until now, scientific investigation suggests that it is an ideal surface to substitute natural turf in unfavorable economic situations or adverse climates, without negative repercussions on sprint performances

2011, 41, 903–923.