CONTEXT: Various designs of braces including hinged and nonhinged models are used to provide external support of the ankle. Hinged ankle braces supposedly allow almost free dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the foot in the sagittal plane. It is unclear, however, whether this additional degree of freedom affects the stabilizing effect of the brace in the other planes of motion. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the dynamic and passive stabilizing effects of 3 ankle braces, 2 hinged models that provide free plantar flexion-dorsiflexion in the sagittal plane and 1 ankle brace without a hinge. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: University Movement Analysis Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen healthy volunteers (5 women, 12 men; age = 25.4 ± 4.8 years; height = 180.3 ± 6.5 cm; body mass = 75.5 ± 10.4 kg). INTERVENTION(S): We dynamically induced foot inversion on a tilting platform and passively induced foot movements in 6 directions via a custom-built apparatus in 3 brace conditions and a control condition (no brace). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Maximum inversion was determined dynamically using an in-shoe electrogoniometer. Passively induced maximal joint angles were measured using a torque and angle sensor. We analyzed differences among the 4 ankle-brace conditions (3 braces, 1 control) for each of the dependent variables with Friedman and post hoc tests (P < .05). RESULTS: Each ankle brace restricted dynamic foot-inversion movements on the tilting platform as compared with the control condition, whereas only the 2 hinged ankle braces differed from each other, with greater movement restriction caused by the Ankle X model. Passive foot inversion was reduced with all ankle braces. Passive plantar flexion was greater in the hinged models as compared with the nonhinged brace. CONCLUSIONS: All ankle braces showed stabilizing effects against dynamic and passive foot inversion. Differences between the hinged braces and the nonhinged brace did not appear to be clinically relevant.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Various designs of braces including hinged and nonhinged models are used to provide external support of the ankle. Hinged ankle braces supposedly allow almost free dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the foot in the sagittal plane. It is unclear, however, whether this additional degree of freedom affects the stabilizing effect of the brace in the other planes of motion. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the dynamic and passive stabilizing effects of 3 ankle braces, 2 hinged models that provide free plantar flexion-dorsiflexion in the sagittal plane and 1 ankle brace without a hinge. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: University Movement Analysis Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen healthy volunteers (5 women, 12 men; age = 25.4 ± 4.8 years; height = 180.3 ± 6.5 cm; body mass = 75.5 ± 10.4 kg). INTERVENTION(S): We dynamically induced foot inversion on a tilting platform and passively induced foot movements in 6 directions via a custom-built apparatus in 3 brace conditions and a control condition (no brace). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Maximum inversion was determined dynamically using an in-shoe electrogoniometer. Passively induced maximal joint angles were measured using a torque and angle sensor. We analyzed differences among the 4 ankle-brace conditions (3 braces, 1 control) for each of the dependent variables with Friedman and post hoc tests (P < .05). RESULTS: Each ankle brace restricted dynamic foot-inversion movements on the tilting platform as compared with the control condition, whereas only the 2 hinged ankle braces differed from each other, with greater movement restriction caused by the Ankle X model. Passive foot inversion was reduced with all ankle braces. Passive plantar flexion was greater in the hinged models as compared with the nonhinged brace. CONCLUSIONS: All ankle braces showed stabilizing effects against dynamic and passive foot inversion. Differences between the hinged braces and the nonhinged brace did not appear to be clinically relevant.
Authors: Mitchell L Cordova; Brady D Scott; Christopher D Ingersoll; Michael J LeBlanc Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; Youlian Hong; Yosuke Shima; Tron Krosshaug; Patrick Shu-Hang Yung; Kai-Ming Chan Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-02-02 Impact factor: 6.202