Korean J Sports Med.  2012 Jun;30(1):41-46. 10.5763/kjsm.2012.30.1.41.

The Relationship between Stud Morphology and 5th Metatarsal Proximal Stress Fractures on Soccer Players

• Lee JY
• Lee GC
• Lee YK
• Park YK
• Park SS
• Song JS

• KMID: 2288647
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5763/kjsm.2012.30.1.41

Abstract

This research sets out to define the relationship between stud morphology of soccer shoes and 5th metatarsal proximal stress fractures on soccer players by comparison and analysis. After the pre-survey of 132 soccer players in Gwangju, 107 players who seem to have a 5th metatarsal fracture were selected. We investigated the shape of the studs and asked whether they had ever had a 5th metatarsal proximal stress fracture. We also asked them some questions on factors, which cause stress fracture, such as what position they play, how long they have been playing soccer as athletes and average playing time. And we analyzed correlation between these several factors and whether they had ever had stress fracture using chi-square (x2) test and Logistic regression analysis. We concluded that soccer players who wore bar type studs shoes had a much greater possibility of stress fracture than soccer players who wore the round type. Also we learned that soccer players who play mid-fielder have a much greater possibility of stress fracture than soccer players who play other positions. And the result of logistic regression analysis of relevance between soccer shoes stud morphology and stress fracture shows a statistically significant odd ratio, 6.840. It has been suggested that the morphology of the soccer shoes stud has relevance to the occurrence of stress fracture. Therefore, according to the result of this study, soccer shoes with the round shape are more helpful in preventing 5th metatarsal proximal stress fracture than soccer shoes with the bar shape.

Keyword

Soccer shoes; Stud; 5th metatarsal proximal fracture

MeSH Terms

Athletes
Fractures, Stress
Humans
Logistic Models
Metatarsal Bones
Shoes
Soccer

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Stud morphology. (A) Bar shape, (B) round shape.

Reference

1. Torg JS, Quedenfeld TC, Landau S. The shoe-surface interface and its relationship to football knee injuries. J Sports Med. 1974. 2:261–269.

2. Williams KR. Biomechanics of running. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 1985. 13:389–441.

3. Aldous DE. Turfgrass indicators that influence player safety and performance in sports fields. 2002. Malbourne, Australia: Perks and Leisure Australia National conference.

4. Andreasson G, Lindenberger U, Renstrom P, Peterson L. Torque developed at simulated sliding between sport shoes and an artificial turf. Am J Sports Med. 1986. 14:225–230.

5. Stefanyshyn DJ. Nigg BM, Cole GK, Stefanyshyn DJ, editors. Joint movements, sport sufraces and sport injuries. Sport surfaces: biomechanics, injuries, performance, testing, injuries. 2003. Calgary, Alberta: Topline Printing;89–106.

6. Kim JH, Kim SO, Kim YC, Moon KS, Lee KH. Research of soccer footwear and development of outsole for increased soccer footwear traction. Korean J Sport Biomech. 2005. 15:429.

7. Raikin SM, Slenker N, Ratigan B. The association of a varus hindfoot and fracture of the fifth metatarsal metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction: the Jones fracture. Am J Sports Med. 2008. 36:1367–1372.

8. Dameron TB Jr. Fractures and anatomical variations of the proximal portion of the fifth metatarsal. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1975. 57:788–792.

9. Petrisor BA, Ekrol I, Court-Brown C. The epidemiology of metatarsal fractures. Foot Ankle Int. 2006. 27:172–174.

10. Van Gheluwe B, Deporte E, Hebbelinck M. Nigg BM, Kerr BA, editors. Frictional forces and torques of soccer shoes on artificial turf. Biomechanical aspects of sport shoes and playing surfaces. 1983. Calgary, Alberta: University Printing;161–168.

11. Lambson RB, Barnhill BS, Higgins RW. Football cleat design and its effect on anterior cruciate ligament injuries. A three-year prospective study. Am J Sports Med. 1996. 24:155–159.

12. Valiant GA, McGuirk FT, McMahon TA, Frederick EC. Static friction characteristics of cleated outsole samples on Astroturf. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1985. 17:222–223.

13. Jin YW. Biomechanical research of soccer footwear. Korean J Sport Biomech. 2005. 15:31–39.

14. Knapp T, Mandelbaum B, Garrett W. Why are stress injuries so common in the soccer player? Clin Sports Med. 1998. 17:835–853.

15. Queen RM, Charnock BL, Garrett WE Jr, Hardaker WM, Sims EL, Moorman CT 3rd. A comparison of cleat types during two football-specific tasks on FieldTurf. Br J Sports Med. 2008. 42:278–284.

16. Lee KT. Soccer medicine. 2002. Seoul: Koonja.

17. Saxena A, Krisdakumtorn T, Erickson S. Proximal fourth metatarsal injuries in athletes: similarity to proximal fifth metatarsal injury. Foot Ankle Int. 2001. 22:603–608.

18. Fetzer GB, Wright RW. Metatarsal shaft fractures and fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Clin Sports Med. 2006. 25:139–150.

19. Lawrence SJ, Botte MJ. Jones' fractures and related fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Foot Ankle. 1993. 14:358–365.

20. Strayer SM, Reece SG, Petrizzi MJ. Fractures of the proximal fifth metatarsal. Am Fam Physician. 1999. 59:2516–2522.