Influence of Cleats-Surface Interaction on the Performance ...3.1. Study Design and Sample: Cleat-Surface Interaction on Performance. Most of the studies assessed the traction imposed

Review ArticleInfluence of Cleats-Surface Interaction on the Performance andRisk of Injury in Soccer: A Systematic Review

Diogo C. F. Silva,1 Rubim Santos,2 João Paulo Vilas-Boas,3 Rui Macedo,4

António Mesquita Montes,4 and Andreia S. P. Sousa4

1Área Científica de Ciências Funcionais, Escola Superior de Saúde do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Centro de Estudos deMovimento e Atividade Humana, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal2Área Científica de Física, Escola Superior de Saúde do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Centro de Estudos de Movimento eAtividade Humana, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal3Faculdade de Desporto, CIFI2D, Universidade de Desporto e Laboratório de Biomecânica do Porto, Universidade do Porto, Porto,Portugal4Área Científica de Fisioterapia, Escola Superior de Saúde do Porto, Instituto Politécnico do Porto, Centro de Estudos de Movimento eAtividade Humana, Rua Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal

Correspondence should be addressed to Andreia S. P. Sousa; [email protected]

Received 15 January 2017; Revised 22 March 2017; Accepted 11 April 2017; Published 8 June 2017

Academic Editor: Stefano Zaffagnini

Copyright © 2017 Diogo C. F. Silva et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons AttributionLicense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Objective. To review the influence of cleats-surface interaction on the performance and risk of injury in soccer athletes. Design.Systematic review. Data Sources. Scopus, Web of science, PubMed, and B-on. Eligibility Criteria. Full experimental and originalpapers, written in English that studied the influence of soccer cleats on sports performance and injury risk in artificial or naturalgrass. Results. Twenty-three articles were included in this review: nine related to performance and fourteen to injury risk. Onartificial grass, the soft ground model on dry and wet conditions and the turf model in wet conditions are related to worseperformance. Compared to rounded studs, bladed ones improve performance during changes of directions in both natural andsynthetic grass. Cleat models presenting better traction on the stance leg improve ball velocity while those presenting ahomogeneous pressure across the foot promote better kicking accuracy. Bladed studs can be considered less secure by increasingplantar pressure on lateral border. The turf model decrease peak plantar pressure compared to other studded models.Conclusion. The soft ground model provides lower performance especially on artificial grass, while the turf model provides ahigh protective effect in both fields.

1. Introduction

Soccer is the most practiced and most popular sport world-wide [1]. This sport is followed by millions of people aroundthe globe, mobilizing people to the stadium, to watch gameson TV/internet, and to listen via radio. Its popularity turnedit into an industry where the sports scores and goals achievedare of the utmost importance [2]. Therefore, the importanceof this sport supports the need of looking for strategies toimprove athletes’ performance, but also to prevent sports-related injuries. This will allow players to provide the best

possible spectacle to his fans, while improve their carriersand clubs [3].

Several adaptations have been introduced in soccer alongthe years. The increasing use of artificial grass field [4, 5] andchanges in format and materials used in soccer cleat areexamples of this adaptation [6, 7]. These changes agree withthe increased importance attributed to the cleat-surfaceinteraction in both performance and the injury risk. The ade-quacy of soccer footwear to the kind of field seems to have adeterminant role in both [7–10]. Several research studieshave been developed regarding this area. However, there is

HindawiApplied Bionics and BiomechanicsVolume 2017, Article ID 1305479, 15 pageshttps://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1305479

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/1305479

no broad consensus as to the adequacy of the kind of the cleatto the respective field to fulfill the requirements of perfor-mance and injury risk. The different study methodologiesand the funding from shoe or turf companies can possiblycontribute to this divergence [11–18]. The lack of consensusin this topic has been recently demonstrated in a qualitativereview [9]. The authors did not conclude about the best cleatto reduce the injury risk and to improve performance. Insideof this, the authors have made several conclusions as to gen-eral aspects of shoe-surface interaction. This difficulty can bebased on the large variability of sports modality englobed inthe review [9]. Because each modality has specific sports ges-tures that impose different demands on cleat-surface interac-tion, as well as different rules, each sports modality should beconsidered separately [3, 19, 20].

The cleats have been considered the most important soc-cer tool, playing a crucial role in the athletes’ performance [7,10]. Its structure can be divided into two main parts, theupper portion, composed by leather or synthetic material,and the sole. The structure of the sole depends on the pitchand is adjusted to provide a good contact with the ground.The studs should provide enough traction to prevent slippingor sliding, which can result in overstretch or tear injuries, butshould facilitate sudden change of directions [6]. The distri-bution pattern and geometry of studs vary widely betweenmodels and manufacturers [3]. Currently, there are basicallyfive types of soles: turf (TF), artificial grass (AG), hard ground(HG), firm ground (FG), and soft ground (SG) [6, 16].According to the manufacturers, the TF and AG models aresuitable for artificial fields and HG model for hard, natural,or dirt soccer fields. The FG model is indicated for naturalgrass in good conditions, while the SG to very muddy orwet natural fields. The classification of these models dependson the size, number, distribution, and type of studs. Thus, thefirst model (TF) presents the highest number of studs, butalso the smaller ones. The other models present a progressivedecrease in the number of studs and an increase in its size[16]. Normally, the SG model is characterized by rigid plasticsoles and only six aluminum studs. In the TF model, the soleand studs are usually composed by rubber while the AG, HG,and FG models present rigid soles and studs, usually made ofplastic [6]. Another feature that varies constantly is the studgeometry (cylindrical, conical, prismatic, and bladed) [13],and for this reason, several studies have questioned if theincreased traction promoted by bladed studs improves per-formance during sudden changes of direction or, on the con-trary, could increase the risk of injury [11, 12, 14–16, 18, 21].The cleats’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

With the increasing number of models available on themarket, it becomes important to review the influence ofcleat-surface interaction on athletes’ performance and injuryrisk to identify the cleat that better responds to the need ofincreased performance and reduced injury risk.

2. Methods

2.1. Research Question. The two main research questions inthis study were as follows:

(1) Which model of soccer cleats promotes a better per-formance in artificial and natural grass?

(2) Which model of soccer decreases the risk of injury inartificial and natural grass?

2.2. Search Strategy. The literature search included only theperiod from 2000 until 2016 on the following databases:Scopus, Web of science, PubMed, and B-on (Table 2).

The following search term combinations were used inall databases: soccer shoes; soccer boots; soccer cleats; soc-cer studs; soccer footwear; shoe-surface interface, andshoe-surface interaction. The search terms were limitedto titles and abstracts published in academic journals. Thereference lists of all studies were also scanned to identifyother potential eligible articles. The study was conductedusing the systematic review method proposed by thePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analysis—PRISMA [22]. The articles included in thisreview were as follows: (i) experimental and original papers,written in English; (ii) studied soccer cleats’ influence onsports performance in artificial or natural grass; (iii) studiedsoccer cleats’ influence on injury risk in artificial or naturalgrass analysis; (iv) compared more than one cleat model insport tasks; (v) analyzed young and adult soccer players orused mechanical devices; and (vi) studied soccer players ofboth genders and all competitive levels. Review articles andthose that studied rugby or American football cleats wereexcluded because the technical gesture and the rules of thissport differ significantly from soccer.

2.3. Assessment of Methodologic Quality. The studiesincluded in this systematic review were evaluated using aquality index proposed by Downs and Black [23] and the rec-ommendations of Munn et al. [24]. Studies meeting 75% high quality. Each author independentlyperformed the quality assessment for each of the includedstudies. Consensus regarding the quality index score for eachstudy was agreed upon by both authors.

2.4. Data Extraction. Data from the included studies wasextracted by one reviewer and then checked by a secondreviewer using a data extraction table which identified thefollowing: author identification, year of publication, sample,ground and footwear conditions, methods and instruments,variables assessed, and main conclusions regarding theshoe-surface interaction on performance and injury risk.

3. Results

The search strategy revealed 213 articles. After an initialreview, 84 were rejected as copies of the same paper and 95were excluded as they were clearly unrelated with the maintheme or because the sport studied was not soccer. Allremaining articles were then reviewed by two independentreviewers. Consensus was reached, and a total of 23 wereincluded as shown in Figure 1. Nine of them were related toperformance and fourteen with injury risk.

2 Applied Bionics and Biomechanics

3.1. Study Design and Sample: Cleat-Surface Interaction onPerformance. Most of the studies assessed the tractionimposed by different cleat models during sprint or changeof direction maneuvers [11, 13–15, 18, 25]. Some studiesevaluated other sport performance components, such askicking velocity [26] and accuracy [27] and the ability to han-dle a ball [28]. With the exception of two studies that evalu-ated the cleats on natural and artificial fields [11, 13], themajority included artificial grass field in their set up [14, 15,18, 25, 26, 28]. The authors that have evaluated the kicking

accuracy did not provide information regarding the kind offield in which the tests were performed [27]. Only one studybased the results on mechanical simulations [13]. All otherstudies obtained their results from experienced male soccerplayers. The sample size ranged from 12 to 52 athletes, withage ranging between 16 and 25 years, the body weightbetween 67 to 77.5Kg, and height between 176 and 181 cm[11, 14, 15, 18, 25–28]. In Table 3 are synthetized main fea-tures of the studies described.

3.1.1. Synthesis of the Results: Cleat-Surface Interaction onPerformance. The findings obtained in artificial grass showedthat generally SG models decrease performance [11, 15];however on wet ground, the TF provides the lowest perfor-mance [25]. The results obtained with a specific cleat proto-type for artificial grass englobing sole characteristics fromthe AG and FG models favored performance compared toall other commercialized models [11, 14].

The studies that have addressed specific cleat charac-teristics demonstrated the following: (i) bladed studsimproved performance compared with the elliptical ones[11, 28]; (ii) increased stud height seems to improve perfor-mance [11], since the studs can fully penetrate [13]; (iii)models that allowed a more homogeneous pressure across

Table 1: Cleats’ characteristics.

Cleat model Indicated field Studs/sole materialStuds

Number Size Geometry

Turf

Synthetic

Rubber studs andcompliant sole

>55 6-7mm

Cylindrical, conical(rounded), prismatic,

and bladed

Artificial grass

Plastic studs andrigid plastic sole

22 8–10mm

Hard ground Dirt field 14 10–12mm

Firm groundNatural ground ingood conditions

11 10–12mm

Soft groundMuddy or wetnatural ground

Aluminum studs andrigid plastic sole

6 13–16mm

Table 2: Number of papers collected from different databases.

Search terms Scopus Web of science PubMed B-on

Soccer shoes

66 44 34 59

Soccer boots

Soccer cleats

Soccer studs

Soccer footwear

Shoe-surface interface

Shoe-surfaceinteraction

3Applied Bionics and Biomechanics

the foot during ball contacts promoted a better accuracy ofkicking [27]; (iv) the cleat weight or heel comfort seem tonot interfere with performance [11]; and (v) the maximumball velocity was achieved with cleats that promoted a bettertraction in the standing limb [26]. However, players canadjust the sport gesture to maintain the desired level oftraction in sport tasks [18].

3.2. Study Design and Sample: Cleat-Surface Interaction onInjury Risk.Most of the studies stated their conclusion basedon dynamic tasks like straight running [21, 29, 30], slalom[21], cutting, and turning maneuvers [16, 31–35]. Only thethree most recent studies have incorporated jump [36] orlanding tasks with changes of direction [35, 37]. Four studiesbased their conclusions on peak torque and the translation orrotational stiffness assessed frommechanical simulations [12,17, 33, 38]. The other studies based their conclusions onplantar pressures [16, 21, 29], the ankle or knee range ofmovement [29, 34–37], the ground reaction forces [30–32,34–37], and neuromuscular variables [32, 37] collected fromsoccer players. Nine articles analyzed the cleats on artificialgrass [16, 21, 31–37], one on natural grass [30], three on bothfields [12, 17, 38], and one did not provide this information[29]. This last study was the only that assessed young players.The majority of the studies relied on experienced male [21,30–35, 37] and both gender [16, 36] soccer players. The sam-ple size ranged from 6 to 36 athletes, with age ranging

between 8 and 26 years, the body weight between 64 to85Kg, and height between 168 and 183 cm. In Table 4 arecompiled main features of the studies described.

3.2.1. Synthesis of the Results: Cleat-Surface Interaction onInjury Risk. In artificial grass, the TF model seems to be thebest choice to prevent injuries related to repetitive impacts,when compared to FG and HG [16], and probably to reducethe risk of ankle and knee injury in turning movements,when compared to FG and SG models [33]. The increasedrisk of injury with FG and SG models seem to be explainedby an increased and unsuitable traction promoted by thesecleats [34]. On another hand and surprisingly, the lower peakof medial ground reaction force demonstrated in SG modelwhen compared with artificial grass studs seem to favor theuse of this model [35]. Furthermore, when more specificrelated injury risk variables were studied (ankle sprain), nodifferences were observed between different models of cleats(TF, HG, and FG), even after an evertor-oriented fatigue pro-tocol [37].

The studies that have addressed specific cleat characteris-tics demonstrated the following: (i) the use of cleats withoutstuds (similar to TF model) when compared to cleats withstuds could decrease the incidence of calcaneal apophysitis[29] and (ii) bladed studs revealed an increased risk of injuryrelated to higher pressure on the lateral border of the footwhen compared to rounded studs [21] and impaired female

Identi�cation

Screening

Elegibility

Inclusion

203 articles were identi�ed through database searching

10 articles were identi�ed through other sources

129 records a�er removing duplicates

11 full-text articles were excluded due to methodological reasons(i) It did not compare di�erent cleats

Methodology used was not experimental

34 full-text articleswere assessed

of eligibilty

23 articles were included in the systematic review(i) 9 cleats’ in�uence on performance

(ii) 14 cleats’ in�uence on injury risk

(ii)

(ii) �e main theme was unrelated with soccer

(i) �e main theme was unrelated with cleats in�uence on95 abstracts were excluded

performance or injury risk

Figure 1: Study selection and inclusion criteria.


Table3:Stud

iesregardingthecleat-surfaceinteractionon

performance.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dand

cleattype

Metho

dsand

instruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Sterzing

and

Hennig[26]

20maleexperienced

soccer

players:

25.4±3.3years

75.1±7.1Kg

177.6±5.3cm

Groun

d:(i)Artificialgrass

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)FG

(0%,50%

,100%

stud

length)

(ii)SG

(100%

stud

length)

(iii)

Ownsoccer

shoe

(iv)

Twoprem

ium

cleat

mod

els

Tasks:

6maxim

umkicks

pershoe

cond

ition

Instruments:

(i)StalkerPro

radargun

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Peakballvelocity

(ii)erceived

ball

velocity

(iii)

Peakresultant

shear

forceof

thestance

leg

Tractionin

thestanding

limbispartly

influenced

bythestud

height,w

hich

inturn

influences

thekickingmovem

ent

andballvelocity.

The

shoe

weightandou

tsolestiffness

hadanyeffecton

resultantballvelocity.

Differentshoe

mod

elsaltertheresultant

ballvelocity.

56,25%

Sterzing

etal.

[11]

52maleam

ateuror

subelitesoccer

players:

24.5±4.2years

73.2±7.0Kg

177.9±4.8cm

dividedby

8stud

ies

Groun

d:(i)Dry

andwetartificial

grass

(ii)Dry

andsnow

natural

grass

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)HG

(ii)FG

roun

dedandbladed

(iii)

SG(iv)

FG(0%

stud

length)

(v)FG

(50%

stud

length)

Tasks:

(i)Straight

line

sprints

(ii)Slalom

Instruments:

(i)Pho

tovoltaiccells

(i)Run

ning

time

(ii)Run

ning

time

perception

(given

byacleatsrank

ing)

SGcleatswithhigh

stud

s’worse

performance

insynthetic.

The

behavior

ofthecleatson

dryand

wetgrou

ndwas

similar.

Bladedstud

sim

proveperformance

comparedwiththeellip

ticalo

nesin

theslalom

test,u

nder

dryandice/snow

cond

itions.

Perform

ance

was

gradually

redu

cedwith

theredu

ctionof

stud

height

(50%

and

0%of

itsoriginalsize).

The

increase

of70

gin

shoesandtheheel

contou

rcomfortdo

esno

tseem

tointerfere

withperformance.

The

mod

eldefinedby

themanufacturers

asindicatedforsyntheticturffavored

performance

comparedto

design

mod

elfornaturalgrass,and

itwas

perceived

byathletes.

59,38%

Hennigetal.

[27]

(i)1ststud

y—24

malesubjects

(ii)2n

dstud

y—20

malesubjects

Groun

d:(i)Not

mention

edFootwearcond

ition:

1ststud

y—five

different

shoe

mod

ification

s2n

dstud

y—twoshoes

withsignificantly

differentaccuracy

inthe1ststud

y

Tasks:

(i)20

repetitive

inside

andinstep

kicks

towards

atarget

Instruments:

(i)Circularelectron

ictarget

(ii)Plantar

pressure

insoles

(i)Meanballdeviation

(cm)from

thetarget

(ii)Pressure

distribu

tion

pattern

Altho

ughmostsoccer

playersareno

taw

areof

it,kicking

speedandaccuracy

canbe

influenced

byfootweardesign.

31,25%


Table3:Con

tinu

ed.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dand

cleattype

Metho

dsand

instruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Clarkeand

Carré

[13]

Amechanicaltesting

device

was

used

instead

ofasoccer

player

sample.

Groun


(ii)Naturalgrass

Footwearcond

itions:

(i)Sixmod

elsof

cleats

withdifferentstud

s’dimension

sand

geom

etry

Tasks:

(i)Three

trialsof

simulated

sprints

startInstrum

ents:

(i)Mechanicaltesting

device

withhydraulic

system

(i)Penetration

capacity

(ii)Horizon

tal

traction

force

Innaturalgrass,onlyhighestand

cylin

dricalstud

sdo

notfully

penetrate,

which

may

explainthelack

oftraction

.The

conicalstuds

demon

stratebetter

penetration.

The

averageho

rizontaltraction

increases

withthestud

s’cross-sectionalarea,bu

ttheop

positehapp

ensifthestud

does

not

fully

penetrate.

Com

paring

twomod

elsof

conicalstuds,

inartificialturf,the

lowestshow

edhigher

traction

.

59,38%

Mulleretal.

[15]

25malesubelitesoccer

players:22.9±4

.1years

71.5±6.3Kg

177.9±4cm

Amechanicald

evice

was

used

tosimulate

sprint

starts.

Groun


Footwearcond

itions:

(i)HG

(ii)FG

(iii)

SG(iv)

Prototype

Tasks:

(i)Straight

linesprints

(ii)Slalom

(iii)

45°and180°

changesof

direction

(iv)

Simulationof

sprintsstarts

Instruments:

(i)Pho

tovoltaiccells

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(iii)

Mechanical

traction

device

(i)Run

ning

time

andtheirperception

(ii)Peakverticalforce

(iii)

Verticalforce

rate

(iv)

Peakshearforce

(v)Shearforcerate

(vi)Coefficient

oftraction

Athletespresentworse

performance

withSG

mod

elcomparedto

other

mod

els.The

SGseem

sun

ableto

fully

penetrateinto

theartificialgrasscausing

instability

mechanism

s.

56,25%

Sterzing

etal.

[14]

47maleexperienced

soccer

players:

23.0±3.2years

71.4±5.9Kg

177.3±4.4cm

divided

into

3ph

ases

ofthe

stud

y

Groun


Footwearcond

itions:

(i)HG

(ii)FG

(iii)

SG(iv)

Prototype

(v)4variations

ofprototype

Tasks:

(i)Straight

linesprints

(ii)Slalom

(iii)

45°and180°

changesof

direction

Instruments:

(i)Pho

tovoltaiccells

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Run

ning

timeand

theirperception

(ii)Tractionsuitability

perception

(iii)

Peakverticalforce

(iv)

Peaka-pandm-l

shearforce

(v)Peakresultant

shearforce

(vi)Perceived

ratios

The

soleof

thecleatdevelopedwas

proved

tobe

moresuitableforsynthetic

comparedto

the3alreadycommercialized

mod

els.Shoeswithhigh

stud

s(SG)do

notseem

tobe

themostsuitablefor

artificialgrass.

71,88%


Table3:Con

tinu

ed.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dand

cleattype

Metho

dsand

instruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Sterzing

etal.

[28]

19maleexperienced

soccer

players:

24.0±3.6years

72.1±3.1Kg

178.3±1.9cm

Groun


Footwearcond

itions:

(i)FG

roun

ded

(ii)FG

bladed

Tasks:

(i)Dribblin

g(ii)One

touchpasses

ofrolling

balls

(iii)

Lofted

passes

(iv)

Reception

passes

(v)Passesfrom

aerial

(vi)Jugglin

gInstruments:

(1)0–10

mm

scale

forhand

lingsuitability

perception

(i)Ballh

andling

suitability

(ii)Dribblin

g(tim

eandball

contacts)

(iii)

Jugglin

g(ballcon

tacts)

(iv)

Passes(cm)

Dribblin

g:FG

bladed

show

edfaster

dribblingtimes

comparedto

FGroun

dedmod

el.

Passes:no

differenceswerefoun

dbetweenfootwearcond

itions.

59,38%

McG

hieand

Ettem

a[18]

22malesoccer

players:

23.1±2.8years

77.5±6.0Kg

1.81

±0.1meters

Groun

d:(i)3differentartificial

grassfieldheights:

(42;50;60mm)

Footwearcond

itions:

(i)TF

(ii)FG

roun

ded

(iii)

FGbladed

Tasks:

(i)5shortsprintswith

a90

° changeof

direction

Instruments:

(i)Fo

rceplatform

(ii)Motioncapture

system

(iii)

Pho

tovoltaic

cameras

(i)Peakim

pact

(ii)Traction

(iii)

Totalchange

invelocity

(iv)

Slidingvelocity

traction

coeffi

cient

The

traction

coeffi

cientappearsto

beho

mogeneous

asregardsdifferent

combination

sof

cleats-groun

d,suggesting

that

individu

alscan

adjustthegestureso

asto

maintain

thedesiredlevelo

ftraction

inthetask

ofchanging

direction.

71,88%

DeClercqetal.

[25]

12malesoccer

players:

16±1years

67.3±8.1Kg

1.76

±8.8meters

Groun

d:(i)Dry

andwet

artificialgrass

Footwearcond

itions:

(i)TF

(ii)AG

(iii)

FG

Tasks:

(i)10

×5shuttle

run

testswitha180°change

ofdirection

Instruments:

(i)Fo

rceplatform

(ii)Perceptionof

performance

question

naire

(i)Traction

(ii)Tim

eto

finish

theshuttle

runtest

(iii)

Players

perception

Players

perceivedsm

alld

ifferences

inperformance

andtraction

.Ondryartificialgrass,thethreetested

stud

designsdo

notaffectperformance

ortraction

.Onwetcond

ition,

theTFshow

eda

larger

shuttleruntime.

AGandFG

fulfilthe

traction

needs

inboth

cond

itions.

62,50%


Table4:Stud

iesregardingtheshoe-surface

interactionon

injury

risk.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dandcleattype

Metho

dsandinstruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

WalterandNg

[29]

36malechild

ren:

8to

11years

Groun

d:(i)Not

specified

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)Cleatswithstud

s(ii)Cleatswitho

utstud

s

Tasks:

(i)Astraight

run

Instruments:

(i)Plantar

pressure

insoles

(ii)High-speedvideo

(i)Length

oftimefrom

heelstrike

toheellift

(ii)Ank

ledo

rsiflexion

angle

(iii)

Plantar

pressure

distribu

tion

The

useof

cleatswithstud

sim

posesa

significant

increase

indo

rsiflexion,

which

increasespressure

onthegrow

thcenter

ofthecalcaneus.The

high

incidenceof

calcanealapo

physitisandtheuseof

shoes

withcleatsin

youn

gpo

pulation

smight

berelated.

34,38%

Smithetal.[30]

6malesoccer

players:

25±4.18

years

79.7±9.32

Kg

Groun

d:(i)Naturalgrass

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)TF

(ii)SG

Tasks:

(i)Astraight

lineslow

(4,4m/s)andfast

runn

ing(5,4m/s)

Instruments:

(i)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Im

pactpeak

and

loadingrate

(ii)Maxim

albreaking

andprop

ulsion

forces

(iii)

Maxim

almedial

andlateralforces

The

alum

inum

cleatsim

pose

increased

verticalforces

andloadingratesbeing

consequentlyprobablymoreassociated

withrepeated

impactinjuries.Itsuse

inhard

grou

ndsseem

sto

beno

tadvised.

43,75%

Livesayetal.

[38]

Amechanicaltesting

device

was

used

instead

ofasoccer

player

sample.

Groun

d:(i)Naturalgrass

(ii)4different

artificialgrassfields

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)TF

(ii)FG

Tasks:

(i)Mim

icachange

ofdirectionmaneuver

underacompressive

load

of333N

Instruments:


device

(i)Peaktorque

(ii)Rotationalstiffness

The

highestpeak

torquesweredeveloped

bytheFG

mod

elon

theFieldT

urftray

andby

theTFmod

elon

Astroturffield

combination

s.The

lowestpeak

torques

weredevelopedon

naturalgrassfield.

65,63%

Kaila[31]

15malesoccer

players:

19.5±1.4years

70.1±7.6Kg

1.76

±0.06

meters

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)2FG

roun

ded

(ii)2FG

bladed

Tasks:

(i)Straight-ahead

run

(ii)30

°and60

°sidestep

cutting

Instruments:

(i)Motioncapture

system

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Internal/external

tibiamom

ents

(ii)Valgus/varus

mom

ents

(iii)

Anterior/po

sterior

jointforces

(iv)

Kneeflexion

angles

(v)Verticalgroun

dreaction

forces

Differentcleattype

show

edno

difference

onkn

eeloadingforeach

maneuver.

68,75%

Gehring

etal.

[32]

6malesoccer

players:

25.2±1.4years

77.8±8.3Kg

183.2±3.4cm

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)FG

roun

ded

(ii)FG

bladed

Tasks:

(i)A180°

turning

movem

ent

Instruments:

(i)Motioncapture

system

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(iii)

EMGrecorder

(i)Maxim

umgrou

ndreaction

force

(Fz,Fx,F

y)(ii)PeakEMG

activity

(quadriceps/

hamstrings)

(iii)

Kneejoint

mom

ents(flexion/

extension)

Rou

ndandbladed

stud

sshow

edno

differencesin

externallyappliedkn

eejointloads.

Higheractivation

ofqu

adriceps

femoris

withroun

dstud

swas

show

eddu

ring

initialp

hase

ofstance.

62,50%


Table4:Con

tinu

ed.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dandcleattype

Metho

dsandinstruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Queen

etal.

[16]

36soccer

players:

20.83±3.05

years

71.12±10.38Kg

1.712±0.082meters

(19males

and

17females)

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)TF

(ii)HG

(iii)

FGroun

ded

(iv)

FGbladed

Tasks:

(i)Run

ning

with

side

cut

(ii)Changeof

directionof

180°

Instruments:

(i)Plantar

pressure

insoles

(i)Totaltimecontact

(ii)The

contactarea

(iii)

Maxim

umstrength

(iv)

Peakpressure

(v)Fo

rcetimeintegral

ofthemedialregion,

middleandside

oftheforefoot

Inchanging

thedirectionof

180°

andrun

withside

cut,thefoot

peak

pressure

was

significantlylower

withtheTFmod

elcomparedwithallo

thersin

both

gend

er.

Forcetimeintegralof

thelateralforefoot

region

was

higher

onthebladed

mod

el,

comparedto

theTFmod

elin

themales.

Inmales,the

totalareaof

contactwas

significantlylower

intheFG

mod

elcomparedto

theTFmod

el.

Infemales,the

forcetimeintegralandthe

medialforefootmaxim

umforcewas

significantlylower

withtheTFmod

elcomparedto

allo

thers.

78,13%

Villwocketal.

[12]

Amechanicaltesting

device

was

used

instead

ofasoccer

player

sample.

Groun

d:(i)2naturalgrass

(ii)2artificialgrass

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)10

differentmod

els:

(ii)4(rou

nded

stud

s)(iii)

3(bladedstud

s)(iv)

2(replaceable

stud

s)(v)1TF

Tasks:

(i)Mobile

testing

apparatuswas

used

toapplyrotation

sat

theshoe-surface

interface.

Instruments:m

echanical

testingdevice

(i)Maxim

umtorque

(ii)Rotational

stiffness

Artificialgrassfields

show

edincreased

rotation

altraction

comparedto

natural

grasswhich

may

lead

tohigher

risk

ofinjury.M

axim

umtorque

and

rotation

alstiffness

wereno

tinfluenced

bythestud

s’pattern.

Moremalleableconstruction

oftheup

per

shoe

canallowgreaterpron

ationdu

ring

leginternalrotation

.Thiscanincrease

theprobability

oftibiop

eron

ealrup

ture.

71,88%

Stefanyshynetal.

[33]

12soccer

players:

26.4±6.2years

74.0±7.4Kg

176.4±4.1cm

Amechanicaltesting

device

was

also

used.

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)Run

ning

shoe

(ii)FG

roun

ded

(iii)

SGroun

ded

(iv)

SGbladed

Tasks:

(i)Cutting

andturning

movem

entsat

4.0ms−

1

(ii)Translation

altraction

(iii)

Rotationaltraction

Instruments:


device

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(iii)

Motioncapture

system

(i)Ank

lejoint

mom

ents:p

lantar/

flexion;

external

rotation

;eversion

(ii)Kneejoint

mom

ents:

extension;

external

rotation

;abd

uction

(iii)

Translation

al(iv)

Rotationaltraction

Cutting

movem

ent:no

significant

differencesin

resultantankleand

knee

jointmom

entsbetweenthe

shoe

cond

itions.

Turning

movem

ent:theFG

(rou

nd),

SG(rou

nd),andSG

(bladed)

hadhigher

ankleandkn

eerotation

mom

ents

than

therunn

ingshoe.

Anincreasedrotation

altraction

increasesankleandkn

eejointloading

which

inturn

couldpo

tentiateahigher

incidenceof

injury.

56,25%


Table4:Con

tinu

ed.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dandcleattype

Metho

dsandinstruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Mülleretal.

[34]

15soccer

players:

20.7±2.8years

71.6±5.4Kg

176.3±5.6cm

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)Cleat

withstud

scompletelyremoved

(ii)Prototype

(iii)

FG(iv)

SG

Tasks:

(i)135°

turning

movem

ent

Instruments:

(i)Motioncapture

system

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Peakforce(Fz,a-p)

(ii)Fo

otangles

(iii)

Shankangles

(iv)

Foot

translation

(v)Maxim

umankle

andkn

eemom

ents

Movem

entpatterns

forturningin

differentcleatswereinfluenced

bystud

confi

guration

andwereprim

aryfoun

din

thedistalpartof

thelower

extrem

ities.

Soccer

playersshow

edredu

ced

mediolateralfoottranslationand

increasedanklemom

entsdu

eto

high

andun

suitabletraction

.Cleatswithstud

scompletelyremoved

(low

traction

)lead

tomovem

ent

adaptation

sin

respon

seto

anincreased

risk

ofslipping.

62,50%

Bentleyetal.

[21]

29maleam

ateur

soccer

players

Witho

utanthropo

metric

data

ofthesample

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)SG

roun

ded

(ii)SG

bladed

Tasks:

(i)Straight

run

(ii)Slalom

Instruments:

(i)Plantar

pressure

insoles

(i)Peakpressure

(ii)Pressure–time

integralover

11clinically

relevant

areasof

the

foot

The

mod

elwithroun

dedstud

scanbe

considered

moresecure

sinceitfeatures

norm

alpressure

distribu

tion

swhilethe

mod

elwithbladed

stud

sispo

tentially

moreharm

fulo

nceitrevealsincreased

pressureson

thelateralb

orderof

thefoot.

68,75%

Galbu

sera

etal.

[17]

Amechanicaltesting

device

was

used

instead

ofasoccer

player

sample.

Groun


(ii)Naturalgrass

Footwearcond

ition:

(i)FG

roun

ded

(ii)FG

bladed

(iii)

SGroun

ded

Tasks:

(i)Staticpreloadof

1000

Nandarotation

speedof

45° s−1un

til

arotation

of140°

was

reached

Instruments:

Mechanicaltesting

device

(i)Peaktorque

(ii)Rotationalstiffness

Stiffnessvalues

weresm

alleron

natural

comparedto

syntheticfield.

Nodifferences

werefoun

dbetweenmod

elswithbladed

stud

sandthosewithroun

dedstud

s.Thisstud

ydo

esno

tconfi

rmthe

hypo

thesisthat

blade-shaped

cleats

may

bemoreassociated

withincreased

risk

ofno

ncon

tactinjuries.

65,63%

Brock

etal.

[35]

14soccer

players:

20.1±1.4years

85.6±9,7Kg

1.81

±0.04

meters

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)Run

ning

shoe

(ii)Cleatswith

artificialgrassstud

s(iii)

Cleatswith

naturalstuds

Tasks:

(i)180°

cut

(ii)Single-leg

90°

land

cut

Instruments:

(i)Motioncapture

system

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Peakverticaland

medialgroun

dreaction

forces

(ii)Verticalloading

rate

(iii)

Ank

leandkn

eekinematic(range

ofmovem

ent,peak

velocity,and

peak

angle)

Fewdifferencesin

grou

ndreaction

forces

orkinematicvariableswereobserved

betweentheshoe

cond

itions.H

owever,

during

180°

cutmovem

ent,natural

grassstud

sprod

uced

thelowestpeak

medialgroun

dreaction

forces

compared

toothertwomod

els.

81,25%


Table4:Con

tinu

ed.

Autho

rSample

Groun

dandcleattype

Metho

dsandinstruments

Variables

Con

clusions

Quality

index

score(%

)

Butleretal.

[36]

28soccer

players

(i)14

males:

22.1±3.9years

73.3±11.5Kg

1.77

±0.66

meters

(ii)14

females

22.8±3.1years

64.4±9.2Kg

1.68

±0.07

meters

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)Run

ning

shoe

(ii)TF

(iii)

FGbladed

Tasks:

(i)Headerof

aball

Instruments:

(i)Motioncapture

system

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

(i)Peakdo

rsiflexion

angle

(ii)Peakplantarflexion

mom

ent

(iii)

Peakkn

eeflexion

angle

(iv)

Peakkn

eeextensionmom

ent

(v)Peakhipflexion

andextensionmom

ent

(vi)Peakvertical

grou

ndreaction

force

Malesoccer

playersexhibitedan

increased

dorsiflexionwiththebladed

cleat

comparedto

therunn

ingshoesor

TF

mod

el.F

emalesoccer

playersexhibited

aredu

ctionin

peak

knee

flexionwith

thebladed

cleatcond

ition.

The

more

rigidshoesseem

toim

pairthefemale

receptionmechanism

.

81,25%

Silvaetal.

[37]

28malesoccer

players

witho

utanklesprain

history:

23.13±1.9years

68.36±5.20

Kg

1.76

±0.06

meters

Allplayerspresented

pescavus.

Groun


Footwearcond

ition:

(i)TF

(ii)HG

(iii)

FG

Tasks:

(i)Five

consecutive

lateral jum

psat

acadenceof

120beats

perminute

Instruments:

(i)Pressureplatform

(ii)Fo

rceplatform

s(iii)

Motioncapture

system

(iv)

EMGsystem

(v)Isokinetic

dynamom

eter

(i)Ank

leeversion

/inversionrangeof

movem

ent

(ii)Lo

adingrateof

theverticalandlateral

force

(iii)

Lateraland

rearwarddisplacement

andspeedof

theCOP

(iv)

Activationtime

ofthelong

andshort

peroneals

Inhealthysoccer

players,thecontribu

tor

variablesforanklesprain

wereno

tinfluenced

bytheTF,

HG,and

FGcleats.

The

conclusion

sweresimilareven

after

anevertor-oriented

fatigueprotocol.

81,25%


reception mechanism after a jump [36], but no differenceswere observed in knee loading [31–33] or in peak torquemeasured by a mechanical device [17].

Once again, in natural grass fields, the TF model revealedas the best choice when compared to SG model to preventinjuries related to repetitive impacts [30]. Lastly, like it wasstated for the performance, the kind of field has an importantrole in injury risk. When natural and artificial grass was com-pared, the last one showed a higher peak torque [38], rota-tional traction [12], and stiffness [17] evaluated by amechanical testing device.

4. Discussion

4.1. Research Question 1: How Cleat-Surface InteractionAffects the Performance? Since 2008, Sterzing and coworkersevaluated various cleat models in two different fields (naturaland artificial grass) during different functional tasks like sla-lom and short straight line acceleration [11, 14, 15, 18, 25],kicking [26, 27], passing, or handling a ball [28].

In general, the model defined by the manufacturers asindicated for artificial grass has been demonstrated to favorperformance in this kind of field compared to design modelfor natural grass (SG) and this is perceived by athletes[11, 15]. The same studies revealed that SG cleats decreaseperformance in dry or wet artificial grass comparing to theother models probably because this model seems unable tofully penetrate into this ground, causing instability mecha-nisms [14, 15]. Globally, the athletes’ performance seems tobe worsened when the stud height is reduced on dry condi-tions [11], but also on wet conditions, due to a lack of traction[25]. The studs’ geometry seems to be an influent factor inperformance between different models of cleats. Bladed studsallowed better performance compared with the elliptical inslalom tests [11] and dribbling [28]. The bladed shape ofthese studs and his orientation to the front may lead toincreased traction in mediolateral maneuvers, and this couldexplain these results. It has also been demonstrated that studswith larger cross section area (not fully penetrated) providedecreased traction, and because of that, it could providedecreased performance [13]. Finally, a prototype cleats’ sole,similar to a regular FG outsole at the rearfoot, but with mul-tiple double cylindrical thermoplastic polyurethane elasto-mers stud elements (DuoCell Techonology) at the forefoot,was demonstrated to be more suitable for artificial fields,compared to three already commercialized models to naturalfields [14]. In terms of performance, this prototype enabledthe manufacturers to reflect about the ideal model for thistype of field.

Studies performed on natural grass revealed that despitenot being perceived by the athletes, bladed studs are associ-ated to increased performance compared to the elliptical onesin dry or ice and snow conditions [11]. In this kind of field,the heel contour comfort and weight do not seem to interferewith the performance, at least in short performance tests[11, 26]. However, we do not know if these two characteris-tics interfere with the performance in real game conditions.In this sense, further studies are required on this topic. Laterstudies have concluded that in natural grass, only cylindrical

and highest studs not fully penetrate the field, which mayexplain the lack of traction. For this purpose, the conicalstuds provide better results [13]. Having a lower cross-sectional area, this last stud geometry could have a major rolein the degree of cleat penetration on natural grass.

Other performance tests regarding kicking tasks revealedthat cleats that promote a good traction on the support legappear to enhance the speed of the shot, while outsole stiff-ness does not contribute to increased kick velocity [26]. Thestability of the support leg should be highlighted, since itseems to be a key point to improve the performance of theshot. Also, pass assertiveness can be positively influencedby the cleat presenting a more homogeneous pressure dis-tribution between the upper shoe part and the ball [27].Furthermore, the dribbling capacity and velocity appearsto be enhanced by FG bladed model compared to FG roundmodel [28] maybe because the slalom velocity inherent tothis task is improved by bladed studs compared to therounded ones [11].

Artificial grass features numerous characteristics, such asinfill particle size, level of compaction, and fiber type; how-ever, only few characteristics have been considered in mostof the papers [11-13]. Some of these characteristics have beendemonstrated to influence the athletes’ performance [18].McGhie and Ettema [18] evaluated three models of cleats inthree artificial grass conditions and have concluded that thepitch with smaller size of artificial grass and less rubber fillimposes more traction than the others. The dry or wet stateof the artificial grass is another feature that influences perfor-mance. In wet conditions, the running time was increasedwith the TF model in relation to AG and FG models.The smaller studs founded in the TF model decreases theirtraction and therefore their performance [25]. The researchabout this theme has increased along time, especially inartificial grass supporting the growing incentive by FIFAfor the use of this type of ground [4, 5].

Despite the high ability of athletes to compensate thedifferent mechanical traction imposed by different cleatsduring a dynamic task, the findings obtained by the previ-ously mentioned studies (Table 3) demonstrate that thecleat characteristics, together with the kind of field, candetermine the effort required for a given performance[15]. In fact, the studies mentioned in this review indicatethat SG cleats impair performance, especially on artificialgrounds. This model presents high studs, and it does notalways allow their full penetration in the field, makingtraction difficult and worsening the execution of functionalspeed tests [11, 13–15]. Concerning the studs’ geometry,the bladed models could improve performance, comparedwith the round studs, in slalom movements, whether indry ground or with ice/snow. This particular model seemsto increase the medial-lateral traction facilitating this typeof changes of direction [11]. Also, no differences seem toexist between the TF, HG, and FG models in terms of per-formance [11, 14, 15, 18], unless the artificial grass is wet,which imposes decreased shuttle run test performancewith the TF model [25]. However, these results shouldbe considered with caution, since performance was evalu-ated only in healthy subjects through velocity in sprints,


diverging just in the direction, straight or with directionshifts to 45°, 90°, and 180°, as well as slalom sprint [11, 14,15, 18, 25]. None of the studies adopted functional tests moreclose to sport modality, like jumps with sprints that can beinfluenced by the type of footwear and ground [36]. It shouldbe noted that most of the studies have included male andyoung adult athletes from lower divisions, or amateurs[11, 14, 15, 18, 25, 27]. Given the increasing popularityof this sport among women, it makes sense to extend thiskind of studies also to this population.

4.2. Research Question 2: How Cleat-Surface InteractionAffects the Injury Risk? Various cleat models have been eval-uated since 2002 in both natural and artificial fields duringdifferent functional tasks (straight running, slalom, cuttingand turning maneuvers, and landing after jumps). Unlike inthe previous research question, this interaction was investi-gated not only in male athletes [16, 21, 30–37] but also infemale adults [16, 36] and young athletes [29]. On the otherhand, to answer the present research question, some articlesused mechanical instruments [12, 17, 33, 38].

For a better understanding, the results will be discussedconsidering the variables/instruments used to measure theinjury risk of the different cleat models. First of all, it isimportant to highlight that most of authors used more thanone instrument, combining, frequently, the use of motioncameras systems and force platforms [31–37]. Whether onnatural or on artificial fields, it has been demonstrated thatadult players using aluminum studs (SG) present anincreased vertical ground reaction forces which could beassociated with injuries caused by repeated impacts [30,34]. These findings seem not support the use of SG in hardgrounds. The TF model presenting increased compliance[6] seems to be more indicated to prevent this kind of injuries[30]. Furthermore, cleats with removed studs increase therisk of slipping whereas the SG sole configuration with alu-minum studs induce high loads on the player [34]. However,surprisingly, during 180° cut movements in artificial grass,aluminum studs seem to produce the lowest peak medialground reaction forces compared to artificial grass studsand nonstudded running shoe [35]. These findings could berelated to the insufficient penetration showed by this modelin artificial grass that could have induced a feeling of instabil-ity [13, 15] and led players to perform the task slowly. Appar-ently, there are nomajor differences between the TF, HG, andFG models regarding kinetic (loading rate of ground reactionforces) and kinematic data (eversion/inversion range ofmovement, COP displacement, and velocity) following jumpwith changes of direction. This is true even when the playerswere under a fatigue protocol for the main lateral ankle stabi-lizers. This conclusion must be considered carefully, since thefatigue protocol was applied to a small and specific musclegroup of the ankle and the sample was composed by healthyathletes (without ankle sprain history). The nonexistence ofdifferences could be due to the great capacity of healthy ath-letes to compensate small differences between models [37].Additionally, during running and cutting maneuvers, no dif-ferences in ankle [33] and knee [31, 32] joint momentsbetween FG (rounded and bladed) and SG (rounded and

bladed) models were showed. Nevertheless, the rounded FGmodel when compared with the bladed FG appears to poten-tiate the quadriceps femoris activation, which can be associ-ated with an increased internal load on the anterior cruciateligament [32]. This finding should be interpreted with cau-tion because of the small sample size. Lastly, it should benoted that the only study that assessed a pure jump taskshowed that more rigid shoes (bladed cleats compared tothe running shoes or TF model) seem to impair the landingmechanism both in male and female players. Special atten-tion should be given to this finding since female players pres-ent increased risk of lower limb injury [36]. A study involvingyoung soccer population demonstrated that cleats with studslead to a significant increase in dorsiflexion during the mid-dle phase of support while running and a consequentincreased pressure on the growth center of the calcaneus.Therefore, the high incidence of calcaneal apophysitis andthe use of shoes with studs in young populations might berelated [29]. This article has a great importance because itencourages the young soccer players to make the best choicesregarding the choice of footwear for different fields. In theeducation process of the athletes, it makes sense to start withthe youngest.

Plantar pressure distribution and neuromuscular vari-ables could give important insights regarding the risk ofinjury. However, few studies have addressed these variables.The TF model appears to be the only cleat that decreasesthe force and pressure beneath the metatarsal heads and,for that reason, could possibly minimize metatarsal injuryrisk [16]. The bladed studs imposes increased plantar pres-sure on the lateral border of the shoe, while the model withrounded studs can be considered more secure since it leadsto pressure distributions that mimic the normal plantar pres-sure profile [21]. Neuromuscular variables, such as activationtime, were addressed in one study only. Despite its impor-tance for the risk of injury assessment, no differences wereobserved in the peroneal activation time between TF, HG,and FG models, even under fatigue. These results should beconsidered with caution since it can be questioned if the iso-lated fatigue of the peroneal muscles could be sufficient toimpair the postural control mechanisms [37].

Some authors encouraged the study of cleat-surfaceinteraction using sporting gestures performed in place ofpractice/game [39]; however, some interesting findings wereobtained with mechanical simulations [12, 17, 33, 38]. Galbu-sera et al. [17] revealed no differences on rotational stiffnessbetween the bladed and other two shoe models with roundedstuds. Thus, could be exaggerated to suggest that athletesmust reject the bladed models, since they do not seem toincrease the risk of noncontact injury [17]. However, becausethe material(s) used to construct the upper part of the shoemay influence rotational stiffness, future studies shouldexplore this hypothesis [12].

Like in performance, the kind of grass also influences therisk of injury. When peak torque and the rotational stiffnesswas assessed by a mechanical instrument in different fields,the lowest peak torque was related to natural fields comparedto four different artificial fields [38]. In addition, it has beenargued that the grounds seem to be more important than


the cleats in traction, linking again, the artificial grass to ahigher risk of injury [8, 12].

In the future, it will be important to assess functionaltasks and variables related to specific injuries in populationswith higher risk, such as athletes with chronic ankle instabil-ity. Future studies involving jump strategies associated withdifferent clinical conditions, like chronical ankle instability,are required, since the landing mechanism is a momentwhere a lot of injuries happen [36]. If possible, the fatigueprotocols imposed to athletes should be closer to the realityof the game [37]. The methodological quality of studies inthis area should also continue to be improved.

Globally, the mentioned studies highlight the TF as a pro-tective model and the SG as a potentially harmful model forrepetitive impact lesions, mainly in artificial fields. This isvalid both in young [29] and adult players [16, 30]. Whencomparing the studs’ geometry of the round aluminum studsand the bladed ones, the second model seems to boost theinjury risk from the lateral border of the plantar surface[21]. It is still important to note that when comparing twofields (natural vs artificial), the second appears to potentiateinjuries due to their rigidity [12, 38].

5. Conclusion

Cleat-surface interaction is an important and current topic,not only because it interferes with one of the soccer players’concerns (performance) but also with the injury risk andabsenteeism from sport practice. Literature reveals adecreased sports performance with the SG model, a protec-tive feature of the TF model cleat, and an increased risk ofinjury in the artificial grass. However, the health promotionliterature continues to be slightly specific. The study of thisinteraction in healthy subjects under fatigue is essential, butvery little has been studied so far. Also, because soccer playerpresent a high prevalence of ankle sprains, the cleat-surfaceinteraction should be evaluated in athletes with increased riskof ankle sprain, such those with chronic ankle instability.Finally, another important factor is the introduction ofdynamic and unpredictable test protocols for the detectionof differences in the cleat-surface interaction. The study ofthis interaction in the injury risk is an exciting field, but thereis still much to explore. The results obtained about this topicwill help sports health professionals to work more efficientlyon injury prevention with the sports community.

Additional Points

Key Points. (i) On artificial grass, the soft ground model isrelated to a decreased athlete’s performance. (ii) On wet con-ditions, the turf model is related to decreased performance.(iii) The turf model provides higher protection against therisk of injury.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestregarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] H. Kunz, “Big count - 265 million playing football,” FIFAMag-azine, pp. 10–15, 2007.

[2] D. Unlucan, “Jersey sponsors in football/soccer: the industryclassification of main jersey sponsors of 1147 football/soccerclubs in top leagues of 79 countries,” Soccer & Society,vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 42–62, 2014.

[3] A. Lees and L. Nolan, “The biomechanics of soccer: a review,”Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 211–234, 1998.

[4] FIFA, FIFA Quallity Concept for Football Turf, 2012,http://www.fifa.com.

[5] FIFA, FIFA - Quality Concept for Football Turf, 2009,http://www.fifa.com.

[6] R. M. Conenello, “Soccer,” in Athletic Footwear and Orthosesin Sports Medicine, pp. 239–246, Springer, New York, 2010.

[7] T. Sterzing, “Soccer boots and playing surfaces,” in Soccerscience, pp. 179–202, Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL,USA, 2016.

[8] E. M. Hennig, “The influence of soccer shoe design on playerperformance and injuries,” Research in Sports Medicine,vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 186–201, 2011.

[9] D. J. Kulessa, A. Gollhofer, and D. Gehring, “The influenceof football shoe characteristics on athletic performance andinjury risk – a review,” Footwear Science, vol. 9, no. 1,pp. 49–63, 2017.

[10] T. G. McPoil, “Athletic footwear: design, performance andselection issues,” Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 260–267, 2000.

[11] T. Sterzing, C. Müller, E. M. Hennig, and T. L. Milani,“Actual and perceived running performance in soccer shoes:a series of eight studies,” Footwear Science, vol. 1, no. 1,pp. 5–17, 2009.

[12] M. R. Villwock, E. G. Meyer, J. W. Powell, A. J. Fouty,and R. C. Haut, “Football playing surface and shoe designaffect rotational traction,” The American Journal of SportsMedicine, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 518–525, 2009.

[13] J. D. Clarke and M. J. Carré, “Improving the performance ofsoccer boots on artificial and natural soccer surfaces,” ProcediaEngineering, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 2775–2781, 2010.

[14] T. Sterzing, C. Müller, and T. L. Milani, “Traction on artificialturf: development of a soccer shoe outsole,” Footwear Science,vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2010.

[15] C. Muller, T. Sterzing, J. Lange, and T. L. Milani, “Comprehen-sive evaluation of player-surface interaction on artificial soccerturf,” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 193–205, 2010.

[16] R. M. Queen, B. L. Charnock, W. E. Garrett Jr, W. M.Hardaker, E. L. Sims, and C. T. Moorman 3rd, “A comparisonof cleat types during two football-specific tasks on FieldTurf,”British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 278–284,2008, discussion 284.

[17] F. Galbusera, D. Z. Tornese, F. Anasetti et al., “Does soc-cer cleat design influence the rotational interaction withthe playing surface?” Sports Biomechanics, vol. 12, no. 3,pp. 293–301, 2013.

[18] D. McGhie and G. Ettema, “Biomechanical analysis of tractionat the shoe-surface interface on third-generation artificialturf,” Sports Engineering, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 71–80, 2013.

[19] L. W. Hogarth, B. J. Burkett, and M. R. McKean, “Matchdemands of professional rugby football codes: a review from


http://www.fifa.comhttp://www.fifa.com

2008 to 2015,” International Journal of Sports Science &Coaching, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 451–463, 2016.

[20] T. J. Gabbett, “Science of rugby league football: a review,”Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 961–976, 2005.

[21] J. A. Bentley, A. K. Ramanathan, G. P. Arnold, W. Wang, andR. J. Abboud, “Harmful cleats of football boots: a biomechan-ical evaluation,” Foot and Ankle Surgery, vol. 17, no. 3,pp. 140–144, 2011.

[22] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and PRISMAGroup, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews andmeta-anályses: the PRISMA statement,” Annals of InternalMedicine, vol. 151, no. 4, pp. 264–269, 2009.

[23] S. H. Downs and N. Black, “The feasibility of creating a check-list for the assessment of the methodological quality both ofrandomised and non-randomised studies of health care inter-ventions,” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 377–384, 1998.

[24] J. Munn, S. J. Sullivan, and A. G. Schneiders, “Evidence of sen-sorimotor deficits in functional ankle instability: a systematicreview with meta-analysis,” Journal of Science and Medicinein Sport, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 2–12, 2010.

[25] D. De Clercq, G. Debuyck, J. Gerlo, S. Rambour, V. Segers, andI. Van Caekenberghe, “Cutting performance wearing differentstudded soccer shoes on dry and wet artificial turf,” FootwearScience, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 81–87, 2014.

[26] T. Sterzing and E. M. Hennig, “The influence of soccershoes on kicking velocity in full-instep kicks,” Exercise andSport Sciences Reviews, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 91–97, 2008.

[27] E. M. Hennig, K. Althoff, and A. K. Hoemme, “Soccer foot-wear and ball kicking accuracy,” Footwear Science, vol. 1,Supplement 1, pp. 85–87, 2009.

[28] T. Sterzing, C. Müller, T. Wächtler, and T. L. Milani, “Shoeinfluence on actual and perceived ball handling performancein soccer,” Footwear Science, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 97–105, 2011.

[29] J. H. Walter and G. K. Ng, “The evaluation of cleated shoeswith the adolescent athlete in soccer,” The Foot, vol. 12,no. 3, pp. 158–165, 2002.

[30] N. Smith, R. Dyson, and L. Janaway, “Ground reaction forcemeasures when running in soccer boots and soccer trainingshoes on natural turf surface,” Sports Engineering, vol. 7,no. 3, pp. 159–167, 2004.

[31] R. Kaila, “Influence of modern studded and bladed soccerboots and sidestep cutting on knee loading during match playconditions,” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 35,no. 9, pp. 1528–1536, 2007.

[32] D. Gehring, F. Rott, B. Stapelfeldt, and A. Gollhofer, “Effect ofsoccer shoe cleats on knee joint loads,” International Journal ofSports Medicine, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1030–1034, 2007.

[33] D. J. Stefanyshyn, J.-S. Lee, and S.-K. Park, “The influence ofsoccer cleat design on resultant joint moments,” FootwearScience, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 13–19, 2010.

[34] C. Müller, T. Sterzing, M. Lake, and T. L. Milani, “Differentstud configurations cause movement adaptations during asoccer turning movement,” Footwear Science, vol. 2, no. 1,pp. 21–28, 2010.

[35] E. Brock, S. Zhang, C. Milner, X. Liu, J. T. Brosnan, and J. C.Sorochan, “Effects of two football stud configurations on bio-mechanical characteristics of single-leg landing and cuttingmovements on infilled synthetic turf,” Sports Biomechanics,vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 362–379, 2014.

[36] R. J. Butler, M. E. Russell, and R. Queen, “Effect of soccerfootwear on landing mechanics,” Scandinavian Journal ofMedicine & Science in Sports, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 129–135, 2014.

[37] D. C. F. Silva, R. Santos, J. P. Vilas-Boas, R. Macedo, A.Montes, and A. S. Sousa, “The influence of different soccercleat type on kinetic, kinematic and neuromuscular anklevariables in artificial turf,” Footwear Science, vol. 9, no. 1,pp. 21–31, 2017.

[38] G. A. Livesay, D. R. Reda, and E. A. Nauman, “Peak torque androtational stiffness developed at the shoe-surface interface: theeffect of shoe type and playing surface,” The American Journalof Sports Medicine, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 415–422, 2006.

[39] M. J. Lake, “Determining the protective function of sportsfootwear,” Ergonomics, vol. 43, no. 10, pp. 1610–1621, 2000.


RoboticsJournal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


Active and Passive Electronic Components

Control Scienceand Engineering

Journal of


International Journal of

RotatingMachinery


Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of

Volume 201

Submit your manuscripts athttps://www.hindawi.com

VLSI Design



Shock and Vibration


Civil EngineeringAdvances in

Acoustics and VibrationAdvances in



Electrical and Computer Engineering

Journal of

Advances inOptoElectronics

Hindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

SensorsJournal of


Modelling & Simulation in EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


Chemical EngineeringInternational Journal of Antennas and

Propagation




Navigation and Observation



DistributedSensor Networks


Documents

Influence of Cleats-Surface Interaction on the Performance ...3.1. Study Design and Sample: Cleat-Surface Interaction on Performance. Most of the studies assessed the traction imposed