| Literature DB >> 32095264 |
Zack M Slevin1, Graham P Arnold1, Weijie Wang1, Rami J Abboud2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral ankle sprain is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries, particularly among the sporting population. Due to such prevalence, many interventions have been tried to prevent initial, or further, ankle sprains. Current research shows that the use of traditional athletic tape can reduce the incidence of sprain recurrence, but this may be at a cost to athletic performance through restriction of motion. Kinesiology tape, which has become increasingly popular, is elastic in nature, and it is proposed by the manufacturers that it can correct ligament damage. Kinesiology tape, therefore, may be able to improve stability and reduce ankle sprain occurrence while overcoming the problems of traditional tape. AIM: To assess the effect of kinesiology tape on ankle stability.Entities:
Keywords: ankle; sprain; taping and bracing
Year: 2020 PMID: 32095264 PMCID: PMC7010992 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med ISSN: 2055-7647
Figure 1Schematic representation of experimental setup.
Figure 2The four different test conditions: (A) barefoot (B) shoes (C) tape with bare feet (D) tape with shoes.
Figure 3Taping technique.
Peroneus longus muscle activity
| Variable | Condition | Mean (SE) | P value |
| Peak activity (µV) | Barefoot | 247 (±19.1) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 249 (±16.1) | 0.891 | |
| Shoe | 367 (±21.6) |
| |
| Tape and shoe | 337 (±19.0) |
| |
| Average activity (µV) | Barefoot | 70.0 (±5.89) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 77.6 (±5.79) | 0.059 | |
| Shoe | 109 (±7.27) |
| |
| Tape and shoe | 109 (±6.83) |
| |
| Latency (ms) | Barefoot | 183 (±8.59) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 200 (±6.43) | 0.074 | |
| Shoe | 205 (±6.53) |
| |
| Tape and shoe | 197 (±6.16) | 0.082 |
*Indicates a significant difference (p<0.05) compared with the barefoot condition.
Tibialis anterior muscle activity
| Variable | Condition | Mean (SE) | P value |
| Peak activity (µV) | Barefoot | 125 (±14.8) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 125 (±11.5) | 0.976 | |
| Shoe | 167 (±15.8) |
| |
| Tape and shoe | 163 (±15.8) |
| |
| Average activity (µV) | Barefoot | 31.5 (±4.41) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 33.9 (±3.86) | 0.527 | |
| Shoe | 39.9 (±3.64) |
| |
| Tape and shoe | 37.5 (±2.81) | 0.069 | |
| Latency (ms) | Barefoot | 214 (±6.11) | – |
| Tape (barefoot) | 221 (±4.78) | 0.383 | |
| Shoe | 221 (±3.98) | 0.353 | |
| Tape and Shoe | 215 (±3.97) | 0.917 |
*Indicates a significant difference (p<0.05) compared with the barefoot condition.
Figure 4Graph shows the comparison of mean (SE) difference in latency between the peroneus longus and tibialis anterior between test conditions.