Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings and Posters 9-1-2018 Vastus and Patellar Protection with Range of motion Pad – Advanced Personal Protective Equipment for the Lower Body Richard T. Stone Iowa State University, [email protected] Brandon Moeller Iowa State University Thomas M. Schnieders Iowa State University, [email protected] Ahmad Mumani Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/imse_conf Part of the Ergonomics Commons, Operational Research Commons, and the Sports Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Stone, Richard T.; Moeller, Brandon; Schnieders, Thomas M.; and Mumani, Ahmad, "Vastus and Patellar Protection with Range of motion Pad – Advanced Personal Protective Equipment for the Lower Body" (2018). Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings and Posters. 154. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/imse_conf/154 This Conference Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings and Posters by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Vastus and Patellar Protection with Range of motion Pad – Advanced Personal Protective Equipment for the Lower Body Abstract The ts andard knee pad is considered the most ineffective personal protective equipment in the American football player’s uniform. This study quantitatively and qualitatively assesses personal protective equipment for the lower body for U.S. football players against the VAPPR Pad (Vastus And Patellar Protection with Range of motion), the next iteration of lower body protection. The tudys consisted of player surveys, material drop testing, and Performance Drill testing including broad-jump, L-drill, pro-agility, and gait analysis with 138 participants in the initial survey and 25 men in the physical testing. Results of the Performance Drill Testing proved that unpadded players perform at higher levels than padded players; established no difference in performance between the unpadded players and players wearing the VAPPR Pad; and validated the VAPPR Pad’s superiority to the standard knee pad. Disciplines Ergonomics | Operational Research | Sports Medicine Comments This is a manuscript of a proceeding published as Stone, Richard T., Brandon Moeller, Thomas Schnieders, and Ahmad Mumani. "Vastus and Patellar Protection with Range of motion Pad–Advanced Personal Protective Equipment for the Lower Body." In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 62, no. 1 (2018): 1363-1367. DOI: 10.1177%2F1541931218621311. Posted with permission. This conference proceeding is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/imse_conf/154 Vastus and Patellar Protection with Range of motion Pad – Advanced Personal Protective Equipment for the Lower Body Richard T. Stone, Brandon Moeller, Thomas Schnieders, Ahmad Mumani Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering Iowa State University, Ames, IA The standard knee pad is considered the most ineffective personal protective equipment in the American football player’s uniform. This study quantitatively and qualitatively assesses personal protective equipment for the lower body for U.S. football players against the VAPPR Pad (Vastus And Patellar Protection with Range of motion), the next iteration of lower body protection. The study consisted of player surveys, material drop testing, and Performance Drill testing including broad-jump, L-drill, pro-agility, and gait analysis with 138 participants in the initial survey and 25 men in the physical testing. Results of the Performance Drill Testing proved that unpadded players perform at higher levels than padded players; established no difference in performance between the unpadded players and players wearing the VAPPR Pad; and validated the VAPPR Pad’s superiority to the standard knee pad. competitive advantages. For some, an increased risk for injury INTRODUCTION in the future is a small cost for a mental or physical advantage Football is the most popular game in the United States, on the field now. Perhaps this willingness to accept risk stems and interest is growing. Player participation has increased over from the mindset that injuries are a part of the game. Today 16% at the collegiate level since the 2001-2002 season more than ever, a complete prevention of injury is not (58,090 in ’01-’02 : 69,643 in ’11-’12), and participation has possible. This fact can mainly be attributed to new training been over 1 million at the high school level since and dietary techniques that are effectively used by players to documentation of participation began in 2006-2007 (NCAA increase both size and speed at all levels of the game (Kraemer participation, 2012; NFHS participation, 2012). Football is et al., 2005). also the leading cause of sports-related injury, resulting in 8.61 With this increase in player physical potential, necessary injuries per 1000 athlete exposures at the collegiate level, and improvements and additions have been made to PPE. A 4.36 at the high school level (Powell, 1999; Shankar et al., complete chronicling of each addition to the football uniform 2007). Given the physical nature of the game, these injury would extend well beyond the scope of this research, but statistics are not surprising, and many pieces of personal certain points of emphasis are relevant. Advancements in protective equipment (PPE) have been introduced over the helmet technology are visually evident, but lower-body PPE game’s history to guard against a variety of injuries. However, has undergone design changes as well. In a sport where the it is surprising that many football athletes are dissatisfied and majority of game changing plays are made in open space, a prefer not to wear one customary piece of PPE; the standard player’s ability to perform precise body movements and exert knee pad. to their physical potential can be the difference between the Statistically, the most injured part of the body in football sideline and a starting spot. These explosive movements are athletes is the knee, but a large majority of those injuries mainly generated by the legs, and any PPE used must not consist of tendon and ligament damage (Pritchett, 1982; inhibit body mechanics. Culpepper & Niemann, 1983; Shankar et al., 2007; Feeley et The most recent development in lower-body PPE was a al., 2008). In fact, no research exists that seeks to quantify the device called a girdle, and its introduction moved past a number of injuries avoided by use of lower-body PPE. Due to technology patent that originated in 1941. McCoy’s (1941) the lack of specific injury data and the fact that the knee pad is original design implemented the use of a fabric pocket to hold a required piece of equipment at the high school and collegiate the pad against the player and allow for removal following level, a more primitive understanding of the intended purpose competition opposed to pads permanently sewn into game of the knee pad was sought. Gerrard (1998) noted a concise pants. The purpose for this design change was to allow for, definition of protective padding during his research into the “cleaning, repairing, or changing” of player equipment use of PPE in professional rugby: “Padding is most commonly (McCoy, 1941). This function is no longer necessary as seen as the use of any material with impact absorption materials used in PPE have evolved as well. Most foams used qualities that is applied to vulnerable body parts to minimize for padding are closed-cell and do not absorb moisture (Ashby the effects of direct contact.” & Mehl Medalist, 1983). Development and use of PPE for industrial and military Girdle design incorporates the compressive assistance of applications accounts for volumes of attention in the literature, fabric to aid in muscular function and secure PPE to the but benefits of research could also be enjoyed in competitive player’s body (Arensdorft & Stromgren, 1992; Walde- athletics. American football athletes in particular use a number Armstrong et al., 1996). The foundation of the design removed of standardized pieces of PPE and are required to do so by rule the pads from a player’s game-uniform pants and placed them (NFL rules, 2012; NCAA rules, 2012; NFHS rules, 2012). in a more compressive garment. In competition, lower-body However, use of this equipment is not standardized for all PPE would remain in place within the tighter garment, players, and modifications are made as athletes seek important allowing less restricted, natural movement of the lower limbs to occur. The girdle has been widely accepted as a standard H2: No difference in performance exists between piece of equipment at the collegiate and high school level, and players wearing VAPPR pads and those a majority of college teams issue the garment to players as part competing unpadded. of the uniform. H3:VAPPR pads are superior to standard knee All competitive levels of football require players to wear pads. certain protective equipment. Collegiate and high school players are required to wear the full set of lower-body PPE METHODS (NCAA rules, 2012; NFHS, 2012). This set includes tailbone, Player Surveys hip, thigh, and knee pads, and the girdle is the preferred method of abiding by this rule. Having outlined the In order to gain user perspective, a survey was development, intended purpose, and effectiveness of the constructed with the intent of generating a research hypothesis girdle, it is imperative to note that the girdle does not focused on standard knee pad design. Accordingly, this survey incorporate the full set of lower-body PPE as shown in Figure consisted of a series of YES/NO questions followed by an 1. open section in which to elaborate and describe the reasoning The knee pad is excluded from the girdle design and is behind the initial response.