• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of athletic training >Emergency face-mask removal effectiveness: a comparison of traditional and nontraditional football helmet face-mask attachment systems.
【24h】

Emergency face-mask removal effectiveness: a comparison of traditional and nontraditional football helmet face-mask attachment systems.

机译：紧急面罩去除效果：传统和非传统橄榄球头盔面罩固定系统的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

CONTEXT: Football helmet face-mask attachment design changes might affect the effectiveness of face-mask removal. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficiency of face-mask removal between newly designed and traditional football helmets. DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. SETTING: Applied biomechanics laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five certified athletic trainers. INTERVENTION(S): The independent variable was face-mask attachment system on 5 levels: (1) Revolution IQ with Quick Release (QR), (2) Revolution IQ with Quick Release hardware altered (QRAlt), (3) traditional (Trad), (4) traditional with hardware altered (TradAlt), and (5) ION 4D (ION). Participants removed face masks using a cordless screwdriver with a back-up cutting tool or only the cutting tool for the ION. Investigators altered face-mask hardware to unexpectedly challenge participants during removal for traditional and Revolution IQ helmets. Participants completed each condition twice in random order and were blinded to hardware alteration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Removal success, removal time, helmet motion, and rating of perceived exertion (RPE). Time and 3-dimensional helmet motion were recorded. If the face mask remained attached at 3 minutes, the trial was categorized as unsuccessful. Participants rated each trial for level of difficulty (RPE). We used repeated-measures analyses of variance (alpha = .05) with follow-up comparisons to test for differences. RESULTS: Removal success was 100% (48 of 48) for QR, Trad, and ION; 97.9% (47 of 48) for TradA and 72.9% (35 of 48) for QRAlt. Differences in time for face-mask removal were detected (F(4,20) = 48.87, P = .001), with times ranging from 33.96 +/- 14.14 seconds for QR to 99.22 +/- 20.53 seconds for QRAlt. Differences were found in range of motion during face-mask removal (F(4,20) = 16.25, P = .001), with range of motion from 10.10 degrees +/- 3.07 degrees for QR to 16.91 degrees +/- 5.36 degrees for TradAlt. Differences also were detected in RPE during face-mask removal (F(4,20) = 43.20, P = .001), with participants reporting average perceived difficulty ranging from 1.44 +/- 1.19 for QR to 3.68 +/- 1.70 for TradAlt. CONCLUSIONS: The QR and Trad trials resulted in superior results. When trials required cutting loop straps, results deteriorated.
机译：背景：橄榄球头盔面罩附件的设计更改可能会影响面罩拆卸的有效性。目的：比较新设计和传统橄榄球头盔之间去除口罩的效率。设计：对照实验室研究。单位：应用生物力学实验室。参与者：25名获得认证的运动教练。干预措施：自变量是5个级别上的面罩连接系统：（1）具有快速释放（QR）的Revolution IQ，（2）具有已更改快速释放硬件的Revolution IQ（QRAlt），（3）传统（Trad ），（4）传统的硬件更改（TradAlt）和（5）ION 4D（ION）。参与者使用带备用切割工具或仅用于ION的切割工具的无绳螺丝刀卸下了口罩。研究人员更改了面罩硬件，以在拆卸传统头盔和Revolution IQ头盔时意外挑战参与者。参与者以随机顺序两次完成每个条件，并且不知道硬件更改。主要观察指标：清除成功，清除时间，头盔运动和感觉到的劳累程度（RPE）。记录时间和三维头盔运动。如果面罩在3分钟后仍保持附着状态，则该试验被归类为失败。参与者对每个试验的难度（RPE）进行了评分。我们使用方差的重复测量分析（alpha = .05）和后续比较来测试差异。结果：QR，Trad和ION的去除成功率为100％（48个中的48个）。 TradAlt的97.9％（48之47）; QRAlt占72.9％（48个中的35个）。检测到去除面罩的时间差异（F（4,20）= 48.87，P = .001），时间范围从QR的33.96 +/- 14.14秒到QRAlt的99.22 +/- 20.53秒。发现移除面罩时的运动范围有所不同（F（4,20）= 16.25，P = .001），运动范围从QR的10.10度+/- 3.07度到16.91度+/- 5.36度用于TradAlt。去除口罩期间RPE的差异也被检测到（F（4,20）= 43.20，P = .001），参与者报告的平均感知难度范围从QR的1.44 +/- 1.19到TradAlt的3.68 +/- 1.70 。结论：QR和Trad试验结果更好。当试验需要切割环带时，结果会变差。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号