The most cut-resistant neck guard for preventing lacerations to the neck.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a variety of neck guard brands when contacted by a sharpened hockey skate blade. DESIGN: Analytic experimental. SETTING: Laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Neck surrogate. INTERVENTIONS: Forty-six samples of 14 different types of neck guards were tested on a custom-made laceration machine using a neck surrogate. Closed-cell polyethylene foam was placed between the neck surrogate and the protective device. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The effectiveness of the neck guard was evaluated by observation of the foam after the simulated slicing action of the skate blade. Two sets of tests were performed on each device sample including low and high force. For low-force tests, initial compression loads of 100, 200, and 300 N were applied between the neck surrogate for each of 2 orientations of the blade at 45 and 90 degrees. For high-force tests, representing a more severe simulation, the applied load was increased to 600 N and a blade angle fixed at 45 degrees. All tests were performed at a blade speed of 5 m/s. RESULTS: Only 1 product, the Bauer N7 Nectech, failed during the 300-N compression tests. All of the neck guards failed during 600-N test condition except for the Skate Armor device and 1 of the 3 Reebok 11K devices. CONCLUSIONS: A skate blade angle of 45 degrees increased the likelihood of a neck laceration compared with a skate blade angle of 90 degrees due to decreased contact area. Damage to the neck guard is not an indicator of the cut resistance of a neck guard. Neck protectors with Spectra fibers were the most cut resistant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study provides data for the selection of neck guards and neck guard materials that can reduce lacerations to the neck.

Skating crossovers on a motorized flywheel: a preliminary experimental design to test effect on speed and on crossovers.

Ice hockey requires frequent skater crossovers to execute turns. Our investigation aimed to determine the effectiveness of training crossovers on a motorized, polyethylene high-resistance flywheel. We hypothesized that high school hockey players training on the flywheel would perform as well as their peers training on ice. Participants were 23 male high-school hockey players (age 15-19 years). The study used an experimental prospective design to compare players who trained for 9 sessions on the 22-foot flywheel with players who trained for 9 sessions on a similarly sized on-ice circle. Both groups were compared with control subjects who were randomly selected from the same participant pool as those training on ice. All players were tested before and after their 3-week training regimens, and control subjects were asked to not practice crossovers between testing. Group 1 trained in a hockey training facility housing the flywheel, and group 2 trained in the ice hockey arena where testing occurred. Primary outcome measures tested in both directions were: (a) speed (time in seconds) required to skate crossovers for 3 laps of a marked face-off circle, (b) cadence of skating crossovers on the similarly sized circles, and (c) a repeat interval speed test, which measures anaerobic power. No significant changes were found between groups in on-ice testing before and after training. Among the group 1 players, 7 of 8 believed they benefited from flywheel training. Group 2 players, who trained on ice, did not improve performance significantly over group 1 players. Despite the fact that no significant on-ice changes in performance were observed in objective measures, players who trained on the flywheel subjectively reported that the flywheel is an effective cost-effective alternative to training on ice. This is a relevant finding when placed in context with limited availability of on-ice training.