Charles Deltour1, Bart Dingenen2, Filip Staes3, Kevin Deschamps3, Giovanni A Matricali4,5,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 2. Reval Rehabilitation Research Centre, Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences, Hasselt University, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 5. Institute of Orthopaedic Research and Training, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. 6. Department of Orthopaedics, Foot & Ankle Unit, University Hospitals Leuven, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Foot-ankle motion is affected by chronic ankle instability (CAI) in terms of altered kinematics. This study focuses on multisegmental foot-ankle motion and joint coupling in barefoot and taped CAI patients during the three subphases of stance at running. METHODS: Foot segmental motion data of 12 controls and 15 CAI participants during running with a heel strike pattern were collected through gait analysis. CAI participants performed running trials in three conditions: barefoot running, and running with high-dye and low-dye taping. Dependent variables were the range of motion (RoM) occurring at the different inter-segment angles as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between predetermined segments. RESULTS: There were no significant RoM differences for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, the first two subphases only showed RoM changes at the midfoot without apparent RoM reduction compared to the barefoot CAI condition. In the last subphase there was limited RoM reduction at the mid- and rearfoot. Cross-correlation coefficients highlighted a tendency towards weaker joint coupling in the barefoot CAI condition compared to the controls. Joint coupling within the taped CAI conditions did not show optimization compared to the barefoot CAI condition. CONCLUSIONS: RoM was not significantly changed for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, there was no distinct tendency towards lower mean RoM values due to the mechanical restraints of taping. Joint coupling in CAI patients was not optimized by taping.
BACKGROUND: Foot-ankle motion is affected by chronic ankle instability (CAI) in terms of altered kinematics. This study focuses on multisegmental foot-ankle motion and joint coupling in barefoot and taped CAI patients during the three subphases of stance at running. METHODS: Foot segmental motion data of 12 controls and 15 CAI participants during running with a heel strike pattern were collected through gait analysis. CAI participants performed running trials in three conditions: barefoot running, and running with high-dye and low-dye taping. Dependent variables were the range of motion (RoM) occurring at the different inter-segment angles as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between predetermined segments. RESULTS: There were no significant RoM differences for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, the first two subphases only showed RoM changes at the midfoot without apparent RoM reduction compared to the barefoot CAI condition. In the last subphase there was limited RoM reduction at the mid- and rearfoot. Cross-correlation coefficients highlighted a tendency towards weaker joint coupling in the barefoot CAI condition compared to the controls. Joint coupling within the taped CAI conditions did not show optimization compared to the barefoot CAI condition. CONCLUSIONS: RoM was not significantly changed for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, there was no distinct tendency towards lower mean RoM values due to the mechanical restraints of taping. Joint coupling in CAI patients was not optimized by taping.
Authors: Roel De Ridder; Tine Willems; Jos Vanrenterghem; Mark Robinson; Todd Pataky; Philip Roosen Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Phillip A Gribble; Eamonn Delahunt; Chris Bleakley; Brian Caulfield; Carrie Docherty; François Fourchet; Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; Jay Hertel; Claire Hiller; Thomas Kaminski; Patrick McKeon; Kathryn Refshauge; Philip van der Wees; Bill Vincenzino; Erik Wikstrom Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Roel De Ridder; Tine Willems; Jos Vanrenterghem; Ruth Verrelst; Cedric De Blaiser; Philip Roosen Journal: J Sport Rehabil Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Lindsay K Drewes; Patrick O McKeon; Gabriele Paolini; Patrick Riley; D Casey Kerrigan; Christopher D Ingersoll; Jay Hertel Journal: J Sport Rehabil Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: C Collin Herb; Lisa Chinn; Jay Dicharry; Patrick O McKeon; Joseph M Hart; Jay Hertel Journal: J Appl Biomech Date: 2013-12-17 Impact factor: 1.833