•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Ankle taping and ankle bracing are the most common solutions to chronic ankle instability and ankle injuries, however, scientific findings suggest that changes in the individual’s gait patterns can occur with the addition of ankle restrictions. PURPOSE: to compare the effects of ankle bracing and taping with no support to lower extremity joint kinematics while walking on a treadmill. METHODS: Seventeen collegiate athletes (19.9 yrs, 1.74 m, 71.2 kg) completed walking trials on a treadmill under three ankle support conditions; no support, ankle taping, and ankle brace.  Ankle and knee angles were measured during the walking trials using electrogoniometers. Peak knee flexion and peak knee extension angles were used to determine the knee range of motion during the gait cycles with the three different conditions. Peak ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion angles were used to determine the ankle range of motion in the sagittal plane.  Peak ankle inversion and eversion angles were used to determine the ankle range of motion in the frontal plane. A 3x3 repeated measures ANOVA was used to compare joint ROM across ankle support conditions. RESULTS: There was no significant change in the knee range of motion throughout the gait cycle of the participants. There were significant changes in ankle range of motion in the plantarflexion/dorsiflexion and inversion/eversion directions.

Peak plantar flexion was 54.2°±18.6° with no ankle support, 22.4°±11.8° with the addition of ankle tape, and 25.0°±11.6° with the ankle brace. Peak dorsiflexion was 25.0°±11.6 with no ankle support, 40.5°±18.5° with the addition of ankle tape, and 42.7°±17.4° with the ankle brace. A significant difference in sagittal plane ankle range of motion (p=0.011) was found between the ankle brace and no support conditions.  Peak inversion was 17.6°±15.2° with no ankle support, 14.8°±11.8° with the addition of ankle tape, and 7.3°±6.0° with the ankle brace. Peak eversion was 8.6°±7.5 with no ankle support, 6.0°±5.5° with the addition of ankle tape, and 7.6°±6.1° with the ankle brace.  A significant difference in frontal plane ankle range of motion (p=0.004) was found between the ankle brace and no support conditions. There were no significant changes in the stride rate across conditions. CONCLUSION: Both ankle taping and ankle bracing are effective methods of ankle restriction. However, ankle taping provided the most restriction in the ankle plantarflexion/dorsiflexion direction and the ankle brace provided the most restriction in ankle inversion/eversion.

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.