| Literature DB >> 27190479 |
Joong-San Wang1, Gi-Mai Um2, Jung-Hyun Choi3.
Abstract
[Purpose] This study aimed to examine the immediate effects of kinematic taping on the tone and stiffness in the leg muscles of subjects with flexible flat feet.Entities:
Keywords: Flexible flat feet; Kinematic taping; Muscle tone
Year: 2016 PMID: 27190479 PMCID: PMC4868239 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.28.1339
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Changes in foot pressure and muscle tone and stiffness in each taping group
| Variable | Side | Kinematic taping group | Sham taping group | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |||
| Foot pressure (pixel/pixel) | DL | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0* | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0‡ | |
| NDL | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | ||
| Rectus femoris | Muscle tone (Hz) | DL | 13.9 ± 0.3 | 12.8 ± 0.2* | 13.6 ± 0.2 | 13.9 ± 0.3 |
| NDL | 13.9 ± 0.3 | 12.9 ± 0.4* | 13.5 ± 0.2 | 13.7 ± 0.3 | ||
| Stiffness (N/m) | DL | 237.0 ± 10.3 | 183.4 ± 11. 1* | 222.2 ± 9.4 | 237.9 ± 10.5 | |
| NDL | 233.4 ± 10.0 | 189.2 ± 14.8* | 219.6 ± 9.1 | 232.7 ± 9.7 | ||
| Tibialis anterior | Muscle tone (Hz) | DL | 18.4 ± 0.6 | 16.5 ± 0.6* | 18.2 ± 0.5 | 18.7 ± 0.5 |
| NDL | 18.1 ± 0.6 | 17.4 ± 0.5 | 17.9 ± 0.5 | 18.1 ± 0.6 | ||
| Stiffness (N/m) | DL | 386.6 ± 21.0 | 323.4 ± 21.6* | 369.6 ± 16.3 | 370.8 ± 12.8 | |
| NDL | 374.6 ± 21.8 | 354.3 ± 17.1 | 363.8 ± 13.7 | 366.8 ± 15.8 | ||
| Medial gastrocnemius | Muscle tone (Hz) | DL | 15.7 ± 0.4 | 15.0 ± 0.4 | 15.3 ± 0.3 | 16.1 ± 0.3* |
| NDL | 15.7 ± 0.4 | 14.6 ± 0.4* | 15.2 ± 0.4 | 15.1 ± 0.3 | ||
| Stiffness (N/m) | DL | 268.0 ± 10.9 | 249.8 ± 8.2* | 258.8 ± 6.9 | 265.2 ± 7.4 | |
| NDL | 269.7 ± 10.0 | 242.7 ± 9.2* | 248.8 ± 8.9 | 262.1 ± 8.3 | ||
| Biceps femoris (long head) | Muscle tone (Hz) | DL | 15.0 ± 0.4 | 14.7 ± 0.6 | 15.0 ± 0.2 | 15.6 ± 0.4 |
| NDL | 14.7 ± 0.4 | 15.0 ± 0.3 | 14.6 ± 0.3 | 15.4 ± 0.4* | ||
| Stiffness (N/m) | DL | 254.8 ± 10.7 | 251.2 ± 18.8 | 250.8 ± 8.6 | 264.2 ± 11.9 | |
| NDL | 239.3 ± 12.5 | 261.8 ± 11.9* | 243.4 ± 9.0 | 259.7 ± 11.9* | ||
Values are means ± standard error, DL: dominant leg, NDL: non-dominant leg. *Significant difference between before and after the taping intervention in each group (p < 0.05). ‡Significant difference between the kinematic taping group and sham taping group (p< 0.05)