Comparison of inversion restraint provided by ankle prophylactic devices before and after exercise
- PMID: 16558248
- PMCID: PMC1317736
Comparison of inversion restraint provided by ankle prophylactic devices before and after exercise
Abstract
The prudence of prophylactic ankle taping continues to be questioned as recent studies have identified other forms of ankle stabilization as more effective means of injury prevention. The purpose of our study was to compare the effectiveness of three ankle prophylaxes (adhesive taping, lace-up brace, and semirigid orthosis) with a control condition (no support) in limiting inversion under dynamic loads imposed by repetitive walking (4 mph) and running (9 mph) on an 8.5 degrees laterally tilted treadmill. Ten subjects participated in four separate testing sessions in which they were videotaped while walking and running on a tilted treadmill before and after 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. Average maximum inversion angle was determined through biomechanical analysis of rearfoot motion for each experimental condition and analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests. There were significant differences in the average maximum inversion angle between the ankle devices at 4 and 9 mph, and between pre-exercise and postexercise measurements at 4 mph, between the semirigid orthosis and the control condition at 4 and 9 mph, and between the lace-up brace and the control condition at 4 mph. Overall, the semirigid orthosis provided the most inversion restraint during dynamic loading, followed by the lace-up brace, tape, and control condition. We concluded that the lace-up brace and semirigid orthosis evaluated were very similar in restricting inversion, and that both devices limited postexercise inversion significantly more than ankle taping.
Similar articles
-
A comparison of moleskin tape, linen tape, and lace-up brace on joint restriction and movement performance.J Athl Train. 1997 Apr;32(2):136-40. J Athl Train. 1997. PMID: 16558443 Free PMC article.
-
Prophylactic ankle bracing reduces rearfoot motion during sudden inversion.Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007 Jun;17(3):216-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2006.00561.x. Epub 2006 Jun 26. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007. PMID: 16800843
-
Influence of ankle support on joint range of motion before and after exercise: a meta-analysis.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000 Apr;30(4):170-7; discussion 178-82. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2000.30.4.170. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2000. PMID: 10778794
-
Comparison of support provided by ankle taping and semirigid orthosis.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1987;9(1):33-9. doi: 10.2519/jospt.1987.9.1.33. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1987. PMID: 18794591
-
Gait comparison of subjects with hemiplegia walking unbraced, with ankle-foot orthosis, and with Air-Stirrup brace.Phys Ther. 1988 Aug;68(8):1197-203. Phys Ther. 1988. PMID: 3399515
Cited by
-
The effect of tape, braces and shoes on ankle range of motion.Sports Med. 2001;31(9):667-77. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200131090-00003. Sports Med. 2001. PMID: 11508522 Review.
-
Changes in ankle joint proprioception resulting from strips of athletic tape applied over the skin.J Athl Train. 1997 Apr;32(2):141-7. J Athl Train. 1997. PMID: 16558444 Free PMC article.
-
The effect of ankle bracing on athletic performance.Sports Med. 1999 Mar;27(3):171-8. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199927030-00003. Sports Med. 1999. PMID: 10222540 Review.
-
Effectiveness of external ankle support. Bracing and taping in rugby union.Sports Med. 1998 May;25(5):285-312. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199825050-00001. Sports Med. 1998. PMID: 9629608 Review.
-
Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Effects of Ankle Taping and Bracing.J Athl Train. 2002 Dec;37(4):436-445. J Athl Train. 2002. PMID: 12937565 Free PMC article.
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources