Literature DB >> 8728530

The effects of semirigid Air-Stirrup bracing vs. adhesive ankle taping on motor performance.

J D Verbrugge1.   

Abstract

The impact on athletic performance is a critical consideration when choosing ankle support devices for competitive athletes. The purpose of this study was to determine if Air-Stirrup ankle bracing and adhesive ankle taping differed in their effects on motor performance. An additional purpose was to determine if there was a subjective preference toward the use of one support method over the other. Twenty-six male athletes performed an agility run, a 40-yard sprint, and a vertical jump while wearing: 1) adhesive tape, 2) Air-Stirrup brace, and 3) no support (control). Observed data suggest that both taping and bracing have no substantial effect on agility, sprinting speed, or vertical jumping ability. The difference in perceived comfort ratings reported by subjects with respect to support system shows that subjects were more comfortable using the brace over a standard ankle taping procedure. These results suggest that both the Air-Stirrup brace and conventional tape do not impede athletic performance. This study may assist athletes and clinicians in making a more informed selection of a prophylactic ankle support device when considering the effect on performance and comfort.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8728530     DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1996.23.5.320

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther        ISSN: 0190-6011            Impact factor:   4.751


  11 in total

Review 1.  The effect of ankle bracing on athletic performance.

Authors:  S D Bot; W van Mechelen
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 11.136

2.  Efficacy of Prophylactic Ankle Support: An Experimental Perspective.

Authors:  Mitchell L Cordova; Christopher D Ingersoll; Riann M Palmieri
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

3.  The Spectral Qualities of Postural Control are Unaffected by 4 Days of Ankle-Brace Application.

Authors:  Riann M Palmieri; Christopher D Ingersoll; Mitchell L Cordova; Stephen J Kinzey
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Effects of Ankle Taping and Bracing.

Authors:  Gary B Wilkerson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Effect of athletic taping and kinesiotaping® on measurements of functional performance in basketball players with chronic inversion ankle sprains.

Authors:  Seda Bicici; Nihan Karatas; Gul Baltaci
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2012-04

6.  Effects of Preventative Ankle Taping on Planned Change-of-Direction and Reactive Agility Performance and Ankle Muscle Activity in Basketballers.

Authors:  Matthew D Jeffriess; Adrian B Schultz; Tye S McGann; Samuel J Callaghan; Robert G Lockie
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 2.988

7.  Effects of tape and exercise on dynamic ankle inversion.

Authors:  M D Ricard; S M Sherwood; S S Schulthies; K L Knight
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.860

8.  Ankle taping does not impair performance in jump or balance tests.

Authors:  Javier Abián-Vicén; Luis M Alegre; J Manuel Fernández-Rodríguez; Amador J Lara; Marta Meana; Xavier Aguado
Journal:  J Sports Sci Med       Date:  2008-09-01       Impact factor: 2.988

9.  The effects of two adhesive ankle-taping methods on strength, power, and range of motion in female athletes.

Authors:  Katherine E Quackenbush; Paula R J Barker; Shauna M Stone Fury; David G Behm
Journal:  N Am J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2008-02

Review 10.  Effectiveness of external ankle support. Bracing and taping in rugby union.

Authors:  P A Hume; D F Gerrard
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 11.136

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.