Abstract
Extensive research addressing prophylactic ankle taping has been conducted related to static ankle ROM before and after exercise sessions and frontal plane kinematics of the ankle (i.e. inversion and eversion). It has been noted that static and to a certain extent dynamic ankle range of motion (ROM) have been altered when the ankle was taped. However, the effect of a prophylactic ankle taping application on lower extremity (LE) kinematics, specifically the hip and the knee, has not been investigated thoroughly. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to examine LE kinematics while ankle ROM has been restricted by a basic prophylactic ankle taping application. The secondary purpose was to examine static ROM measures before and after the run in a subset of the sample. METHODS: Twelve recreational runners, 3 males and 9 females, (mean age = 31.3 ± 8.0 yrs; mass = 61.8 ± 9.4 kg; height = 158.0 ± 28.3 cm; BMI = 22.2 ± 2.7 kg/m2) volunteered to complete two 20 min treadmill running sessions (tape and no tape) at their own pace. The order of the trials was counter-balanced. Prior to the run, seven reflective markers were placed along bony prominences on the right side of the body (5th metatarsal, heel, lateral malleolus, lateral condyle of the femur, greater trochantar, and acromion process). Two-dimensional kinematic data (60 Hz) from the sagittal plane were analyzed for three gait cycles that were captured at 2:30, 9:30, 17:30, and 20 min into the run. The variables analyzed were stride rate (SR), stride length (SL), ground contact time (GC), LE joint ROM and angles at heel-strike (HS) and toe-off (TO). Static ankle ROM measures were obtained on four subjects before and after each run. The data were analyzed using an ANOVA with repeated measures. RESULTS: There was a significant condition-by-time interaction for the hip angle at TO (p = .01); however, the interactions for the ankle and hip at TO were not significant. The interactions for SR, SL, GC, LE joint angles at HS and ROM were not significant. There was a trend for hip ROM to decrease over time during the taped condition (p = .08) and the ankle angle tended to decrease during TO when it was taped. There was not a statistical interaction for static ROM measurements. There was a significant effect for condition (p = .04) and static ROM of the ankle was significantly reduced during the taped trial. CONCLUSION: At push-off the hip angle continued to decrease during the taped condition, which resulted in a trend for less ROM at the hip. LE joint angles at HS, SR, SL, and GC were not affected by taping. Taping the ankle did significantly decrease static ROM of the ankle. Further qualitative kinematic examination of each subject's data suggested that certain individuals expressed changes in the LE (i.e. joint angles and ROM) when the ankle was taped compared to when the ankle was not taped. It is not clear as to why the taping application had this effect on certain subjects. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Since prophylactic taping applications are widely used within sporting events it is important to consider the effects on the rest of the kinetic chain as well as its protective integrity. The dynamic ROM of the ankle was within the functional mid-range of the static ROM even when the ankle was taped. Thus, there was no significant impact on the kinetic chain by limiting the end ROM of the ankle through a prophylactic taping application.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call