| Abstrakt: |
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 308 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 (142.68/s) than in the control (209.18/s) or tape (174.38/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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
