[Incidence of Musculoskeletal Injuries in Natural and Artificial Turfs during the 2024 First Division of Brazilian Football Championship: A Retrospective Study]

To describe and compare matches played on artificial and natural turfs during the 2024 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (the championship of the highest level of the professional association football league in Brazil), focusing specifically on the observed incidence and distribution of musculoskeletal injuries.

In the current retrospective observational study, we analyzed all 380 matches of the 2024 season. Data regarding turf type, match characteristics, and injuries were obtained exclusively from publicly available secondary sources, including the official website of Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF; https://www.cbf.com.br ) and major national media outlets. Cases with conflicting information were excluded. Exposure during the match was estimated assuming 22 players and 90 minutes, with incidence expressed as injuries per 1 thousand player-hours. Sub-analyses excluded previous reinjuries and direct trauma cases.

A total of 88 injuries was recorded, showing 6.6 injuries per 1 thousand player-hours on natural turf versus 9.5 injuries per 1 thousand player-hours on artificial turf. Hamstring strains and ankle sprains were the most frequently observed types. Regarding the turfs, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) turf presented the highest rates among the artificial ones, while perennial ryegrass presented the highest rates among the natural ones. Injury numbers varied by context, with considerable rates observed regarding artificial turf during afternoon or night matches and at lower temperatures. Surgical treatments were frequently observed in association with natural turf, whereas recovery times differed minimally. Notably, one team whose stadium used artificial turf home team and one team whose stadium used natural turf recorded identical injury totals.

Differences in injury occurrence between turf types were minimal. Given the retrospective design, secondary data reliance, underreporting potential, and limited control of confounders, the findings represent observational associations. Future prospective studies using standardized surveillance are warranted.