Literature DB >> 16558248

Comparison of inversion restraint provided by ankle prophylactic devices before and after exercise.

N Martin1, R A Harter.   

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.

Year:  1993        PMID: 16558248      PMCID: PMC1317736     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  16 in total

1.  The measurable support of the ankle joint by conventional methods of taping.

Authors:  G L RARICK; G BIGLEY; R KARST; R M MALINA
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1962-09       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Analysis of athletic performance with prophylactic ankle devices.

Authors:  R T Burks; B G Bean; R Marcus; H B Barker
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1991 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.202

3.  Comparative biomechanical effects of the standard method of ankle taping and a taping method designed to enhance subtalar stability.

Authors:  G B Wilkerson
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1991 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Systematic ankle stabilization and the effect on performance.

Authors:  J R Robinson; E C Frederick; L B Cooper
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 5.411

5.  A comparison of ankle taping methods.

Authors:  M H Pope; P Renstrom; D Donnermeyer; S Morgenstern
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  1987-04       Impact factor: 5.411

6.  The frequency of injury, mechanism of injury, and epidemiology of ankle sprains.

Authors:  J G Garrick
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1977 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Taping the "athletic ankle".

Authors:  R H Bullard; J Dawson; D J Arenson
Journal:  J Am Podiatry Assoc       Date:  1979-12

8.  Air stirrup management of ankle injuries in the athlete.

Authors:  C N Stover
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1980 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Role of external support in the prevention of ankle sprains.

Authors:  J G Garrick; R K Requa
Journal:  Med Sci Sports       Date:  1973

10.  Three-dimensional kinematics of the taped ankle before and after exercise.

Authors:  R K Laughman; T A Carr; E Y Chao; J W Youdas; F H Sim
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1980 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  The effect of ankle bracing on athletic performance.

Authors:  S D Bot; W van Mechelen
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 11.136

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.  Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Effects of Ankle Taping and Bracing.

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

4.  A comparison of moleskin tape, linen tape, and lace-up brace on joint restriction and movement performance.

Authors:  R C Metcalfe; G A Schlabach; M A Looney; E J Renehan
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Changes in ankle joint proprioception resulting from strips of athletic tape applied over the skin.

Authors:  G G Simoneau; R M Degner; C A Kramper; K H Kittleson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 2.860

6.  Effects of tape and exercise on dynamic ankle inversion.

Authors:  M D Ricard; S M Sherwood; S S Schulthies; K L Knight
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.860

7.  Ankle ranges of motion during extended activity periods while taped and braced.

Authors:  D L Paris; J Kokkaliaris; V Vardaxis
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 8.  The effect of tape, braces and shoes on ankle range of motion.

Authors:  E A Verhagen; A J van der Beek; W van Mechelen
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 9.  Effectiveness of external ankle support. Bracing and taping in rugby union.

Authors:  P A Hume; D F Gerrard
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 11.136

10.  People with chronic ankle instability benefit from brace application in highly dynamic change of direction movements.

Authors:  Patrick Fuerst; Albert Gollhofer; Markus Wenning; Dominic Gehring
Journal:  J Foot Ankle Res       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 2.303

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.