Emily A Hall1, Janet E Simon2, Carrie L Docherty1. 1. Department of Kinesiology, Indiana University, Bloomington; 2. Division of Athletic Training, Ohio University, Athens.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Prophylactic ankle supports are commonly used. However, the effectiveness of external supports in preventing an inversion stress has been debated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how ankle bracing and taping affect inversion range of motion, time to maximum inversion, inversion velocity, and perceived ankle stability compared with a control condition during a dynamic inversion perturbation while walking. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 42 physically active participants (16 men, 26 women; age = 21.2 ± 3.3 years, height = 168.9± 8.9 cm, mass = 66.1 ± 11.4 kg) volunteered. INTERVENTION(S): Participants walked on a custom-built walkway that suddenly inverted their ankles to 30° in 3 conditions: brace, tape, and control (no external support). We used an ASO ankle brace for the brace condition and a closed basketweave technique for the tape condition. Three trials were completed for each condition. Main Outcome Measure(s) Maximum inversion (degrees), time to maximum inversion (milliseconds), and inversion velocity (degrees per second) were measured using an electrogoniometer, and perceived stability (centimeters) was measured using a visual analog scale. RESULTS:Maximum inversion decreased more in the brace condition (20.1°) than in the control (25.3°) or tape (22.3°) conditions (both P values = .001), and the tape condition restricted inversion more than the control condition (P = .001). Time to maximum inversion was greater in the brace condition (143.5 milliseconds) than in the control (123.7 milliseconds; P = .001) or tape (130.7 milliseconds; P = .009) conditions and greater in the tape than in the control condition (P = .02). Inversion velocity was slower in the brace condition (142.6°/s) than in the control (209.1°/s) or tape (174.3°/s) conditions (both P values = .001) and slower in the tape than in the control condition (P = .001). Both the brace and tape conditions provided more perceived stability (0.98 cm and 0.94 cm, respectively) than the control condition (2.38 cm; both P values = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both prophylactic conditions affected inversion range of motion, time to maximum inversion, inversion velocity, and perceived ankle stability. However, bracing provided more restriction at a slower rate than taping.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Prophylactic ankle supports are commonly used. However, the effectiveness of external supports in preventing an inversion stress has been debated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how ankle bracing and taping affect inversion range of motion, time to maximum inversion, inversion velocity, and perceived ankle stability compared with a control condition during a dynamic inversion perturbation while walking. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Research laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 42 physically active participants (16 men, 26 women; age = 21.2 ± 3.3 years, height = 168.9 ± 8.9 cm, mass = 66.1 ± 11.4 kg) volunteered. INTERVENTION(S): Participants walked on a custom-built walkway that suddenly inverted their ankles to 30° in 3 conditions: brace, tape, and control (no external support). We used an ASO ankle brace for the brace condition and a closed basketweave technique for the tape condition. Three trials were completed for each condition. Main Outcome Measure(s) Maximum inversion (degrees), time to maximum inversion (milliseconds), and inversion velocity (degrees per second) were measured using an electrogoniometer, and perceived stability (centimeters) was measured using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Maximum inversion decreased more in the brace condition (20.1°) than in the control (25.3°) or tape (22.3°) conditions (both P values = .001), and the tape condition restricted inversion more than the control condition (P = .001). Time to maximum inversion was greater in the brace condition (143.5 milliseconds) than in the control (123.7 milliseconds; P = .001) or tape (130.7 milliseconds; P = .009) conditions and greater in the tape than in the control condition (P = .02). Inversion velocity was slower in the brace condition (142.6°/s) than in the control (209.1°/s) or tape (174.3°/s) conditions (both P values = .001) and slower in the tape than in the control condition (P = .001). Both the brace and tape conditions provided more perceived stability (0.98 cm and 0.94 cm, respectively) than the control condition (2.38 cm; both P values = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Both prophylactic conditions affected inversion range of motion, time to maximum inversion, inversion velocity, and perceived ankle stability. However, bracing provided more restriction at a slower rate than taping.
Authors: Christena W Linford; J Ty Hopkins; Shane S Schulthies; Brent Freland; David O Draper; Iain Hunter Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.966