A new study published in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine reveals a surprising twist in the debate over playing surfaces: young, helmeted football players who suffer concussions on natural grass report more severe symptoms and a greater number of them than players injured on artificial turf.
This is the first study to focus on post-concussive symptoms based on playing surface, and it challenges the common perception that grass is the safer option. Morgan Heinzelmann-Weisbaum, assistant professor of orthopedics and neurology at Emory School of Medicine, is first author of the study. “While this study is novel, keep in mind that it is a pilot study limited to young, male football players,” says Heinzelmann-Weisbaum. “Our findings do build on previous research that has reported a lower incidence of sports-related concussion (SRC) on turf compared to grass in competitive sports, but they don’t support the safety of one playing surface over another at this time. Additional research is needed to continue investigating a potential relationship between playing surface and SRC/post-concussive symptoms—optimizing player safety is of the utmost importance.” The study included 10- to 24-year-old male American football players who had sustained a helmet-to-ground SRC and presented to a specialty concussion clinic within 14 days of injury. Study partners included the North Texas Concussion Registry team and principal investigator Munro Cullum, clinical neuropsychologist at the University of Texas Southwestern.
Email the Editor 
