Copyright Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Andre M. Loyd, PhD,* Lawrence Berglund, BSc,† Casey P. Twardowski, BA,‡ Michael B. Stuart, BA,‡ Aynsley M. Smith, RN, PhD,‡ Daniel V. Gaz, MSc,‡ David A. Krause, PT, DSc,§ Kai-Nan An, PhD,† and Michael J. Stuart, MD†
Overall, a total of 46 neck guards and 14 different brands and types of neck guards were examined. Thirty-two neck guards comprised the moderate set of tests, and 14 neck guards were subjected to the 600-N tests.Low-Force Tests
No damage to the neck form was observed for any of the 100, 200, or 300 N tests with the blade angle at 90 degrees (Table 1). Only 2 instances of 32 tests for the conditions of 300 N and 45-degree blade angle group was damage to the foam noted, both of which being the Bauer N7 neck guard (Table 1). Nominal logistic regression showed that the type of neck guard and static force were significant predictors of neck guard failure (Table 1).
The potential of damage increased with increasing force and was higher for the 45-degree angle than the 90-degree angle (Figure 4). Additionally, risk of damage to the neck guard was dependent on the neck guard being tested (Table 1). For example, the Nike Bauer NTP Sr., CCM, and Easton NG had no damage to the neck guard for any tests, whereas the Bauer Integrated shirt was damaged 13 of 18 times tested.
Results of the high-force tests showed that the majority of neck guards failed at 600 N and 45-degree angle tests. Of 14 neck guards tested, 11 failed; of 3 neck guards that did not fail, 2 were of the Skate Armor brand (0/2), and 1 was a Reebok 11K (1/3) (Table 2). All neck guards sustained device injury for each of the high-force tests.