Literature DB >> 10778794

Influence of ankle support on joint range of motion before and after exercise: a meta-analysis.

M L Cordova1, C D Ingersoll, M J LeBlanc.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of different types of ankle support on ankle and foot joint range of motion before and after activity using meta-analysis procedures.
BACKGROUND: The effects of ankle support on joint range of motion before and after exercise has been extensively studied, but the results among studies are not consistent. Obtaining knowledge from synthesizing the available literature with a meta-analysis can provide a greater understanding of these effects. METHODS AND MEASURES: A total of 253 cases from 19 studies were examined and included in this analysis. The treatment variables were ankle support with 3 levels (tape, lace-up, and semirigid) and time with 2 levels (before exercise and after exercise). Standardized effect sizes were computed for inversion, eversion, dorsiflexion, and plantar flexion range of motion to measure the difference between control and treatment groups at each point in time. Effect sizes were analyzed using a mixed-model factorial analysis of variance.
RESULTS: Before exercise, the semirigid condition (-2.97 +/- 0.63) demonstrated greater restriction compared with the tape (-2.33 +/- 0.38) and lace-up conditions (-2.18 +/- 0.86) for inversion range of motion. After exercise, the semirigid condition (-3.85 +/- 0.64) restricted inversion range of motion more than the tape (-1.07 +/- 0.20) and lace-up (-1.56 +/- 0.29) conditions. No differences were found between the mean effect sizes for the tape and lace-up conditions before and after exercise. With respect to eversion range of motion, the semirigid support (-2.69 +/- 0.43) provided greater restraint compared with the tape (-1.00 +/- 0.21) and lace-up (-1.40 +/- 0.47) conditions. The lace-up condition also displayed greater support compared with tape alone. For dorsiflexion range of motion, greatest overall support was provided by the tape condition (-0.94 +/- 0.06) compared with the lace-up condition (-0.51 +/- 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: The greatest restriction of motion in the frontal plane was offered by the semirigid support condition, whereas taping offered the most support for limiting dorsiflexion range of motion. The results of this study may help clinicians make rational decisions concerning the selection of ankle appliances for preventing acute or chronic reinjury.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10778794     DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2000.30.4.170

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 0190-6011            Impact factor:   4.751


  16 in total

1.  Peroneus longus stretch reflex amplitude increases after ankle brace application.

Authors:  M L Cordova; C D Ingersoll
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 13.800

2.  Efficacy of Prophylactic Ankle Support: An Experimental Perspective.

Authors:  Mitchell L Cordova; Christopher D Ingersoll; Riann M Palmieri
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  The Spectral Qualities of Postural Control are Unaffected by 4 Days of Ankle-Brace Application.

Authors:  Riann M Palmieri; Christopher D Ingersoll; Mitchell L Cordova; Stephen J Kinzey
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Effects of Ankle Taping and Bracing.

Authors:  Gary B Wilkerson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Prophylactic Ankle Taping and Bracing: A Numbers-Needed-to-Treat and Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Authors:  Lauren C. Olmsted; Luzita I. Vela; Craig R. Denegar; Jay Hertel
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  The effect of kinesio® tape on vertical jump and dynamic postural control.

Authors:  Mikiko A Nakajima; Carolann Baldridge
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2013-08

7.  Gait kinematics after taping in participants with chronic ankle instability.

Authors:  Lisa Chinn; Jay Dicharry; Joseph M Hart; Susan Saliba; Robert Wilder; Jay Hertel
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Dynamic postural stability in subjects with braced, functionally unstable ankles.

Authors:  Erik A Wikstrom; Mark A Arrigenna; Mark D Tillman; Paul A Borsa
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2006 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Prophylactic ankle braces and star excursion balance measures in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  Lisa Hardy; Kellie Huxel; Jody Brucker; Thomas Nesser
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Lower extremity kinematics and ground reaction forces after prophylactic lace-up ankle bracing.

Authors:  Lindsay J DiStefano; Darin A Padua; Cathleen N Brown; Kevin M Guskiewicz
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.