Effects of Athletic Tape, Leukotape P, and Prophylactic Bracing During a Dynamic Postural Control Test

Abstract

CONTEXT: Athletic tape (AT), leukotape P (LEU), and prophylactic ankle bracing (BR) are commonly used in sport activity where dynamic postural control is important in optimal performance. The relationship between balance and these different types of tape and bracing have not been extensively studied. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of no intervention (NO), AT, LEU, and BR on modified Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) reach distance. Participants: Twenty-four healthy volunteers (9 males, 15 females; age: 22.13 ± 2.37 years; height: 164.99 ± 8.71 cm; mass: 70.06 ± 12.42 kg) who were self-reported recreationally active and have not experienced a lower extremity injury in the past six months participated. METHODS: NO, AT, LEU, and BR were applied during four randomized trials. Reach distance during a modified SEBT were recorded for individual directions and as composite scores for each leg and standardized by leg length. RESULTS: One-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a significance F omnibus value between type of tape and reach distance for right composite score, F(3, 20) = 10.071, p =.000, right anterior reach F(3, 21)= 7.082, p=.002, and left anterior reach F(3, 21) = 6.231 p=.003. Post hoc comparisons revealed that AT condition had significantly less right composite score compared to LEU condition; t(22) =- 3.85, p =.001 and BR condition; t(22) =-4.12, p=.000. Right anterior reach for AT condition was less than NO, t(23) =4.179, p =.000 and BR condition), t(23) =-3.045, p=.006. Left anterior reach for AT was also less compared to NO, t(23) =4.579, p= .000; and LEU; t(23) = -3.690, p= .001. CONCLUSION: AT is often used to address ankle instability, however it may limit dynamic postural control stability. Using other tape or braces may exhibit the same stabilizing effect without impeding dynamic postural control.