HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 33/8/1210    most recent 0363546504271753v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Swartz, E. E. Articles by Decoster, L. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Swartz, E. E. Articles by Decoster, L. C. Related Collections Rehabilitation/Training Football

Football Equipment Design Affects Face Mask Removal Efficiency

Erik E. Swartz, PhD, ATC^*,, Susan A. Norkus, PhD, ATC, Tom Cappaert, PhD, ATC, CSCS, CES and Laura C. Decoster, ATC^||

From the University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, and ^|| New Hampshire Musculoskeletal Institute, Manchester, New Hampshire

^* Address correspondence to Erik E. Swartz, PhD, ATC, 124 Main Street/NH Hall, Department of Kinesiology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824 (e-mail: eswartz{at}cisunix.unh.edu).

Background: Researchers have investigated the performance of face mask removal tools for spine injury management in football but not the effects of football equipment design.

Hypotheses: Various styles or designs of football helmet equipment (helmets, face masks, loop straps) affect face mask removal efficiency. A cordless screwdriver performs more efficiently than do cutting tools.

Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.

Methods: Nineteen certified athletic trainers were randomly assigned to group 1 (cordless screwdriver and the FM Extractor) or group 2 (cordless screwdriver and the Trainer’s Angel). Subjects randomly performed face mask removal for 6 conditions composed of helmet (3), face mask (3), and loop strap (5) combinations. Time, head movement, perceived difficulty, and success rates were measured.

Results: Multiple significant differences were found in time, movement, and perceived difficulty between the 6 helmet equipment conditions. The Shockblocker loop strap was consistently superior in all variables regardless of the tool used or the helmet it was attached to. The cordless screwdriver created less movement (mean range from any one plane, 2.8°–13.3°), was faster (mean range, 42.1–68.8 seconds), and was less difficult (mean rating of perceived exertion range, 1.4–2.9) compared to cutting tools (ranges, 4.4°–18.4° in any one plane, 71–174 seconds, rating of perceived exertion, 2.8–7.7). Trial failure was more common with cutting tools than with the screwdriver.

Conclusion: Differences in football helmet equipment affect face mask removal. The cordless screwdriver is more efficient than the FM Extractor and Trainer’s Angel.

Clinical Relevance: Professionals responsible for the care of football athletes must be knowledgeable in the types of equipment used and the best option available for effective airway access.

Key Words: cervical spine injury • emergency management • airway access • football injury

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. J. Rubino III and M. D. Miller What's New in Sports Medicine J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., February 1, 2006; 88(2): 457 - 468. [Full Text] [PDF]