Ankle Biomechanics and Jump Performance in Healthy and Chronic Ankle Instability Individuals During Landing: A Triple Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Ankle Taping Efficacy

Abstract

BackgroundClinicians regularly utilize ankle taping procedures to prevent ankle sprains during practice/competition. Though many different ankle taping applications are employed, the effect of these on biomechanics and performance is unknown.ObjectiveTo investigate changes in ankle biomechanics during landing and jump performance with ankle taping.DesignTriple-blind randomized.SettingUniversity laboratory.ParticipantsTwenty-eight participants (14 healthy, 14 with chronic ankle instability [CAI]).InterventionsEach participant was assigned to a randomized order of three taping applications (1: Traditional Taping [TT], 2: Mulligan Concept Taping [MT], and 3: Kinesiology Taping [KT]) and performed maximum vertical jump and running-stop jump-landings (3 before and 3 after) each ankle taping application. An eight infrared optical cameras system (Vicon Motion Systems Ltd. Oxford, UK) and force plate (AMTI, Watertown, MA) were used to collect all kinematics and kinetics data during running-stop jump-landing.Main Outcome MeasurementsMaximum height of vertical jump and excursion of dorsiflexion (DF) and inversion (IV) of the ankle between 100 ms before and after initial contact (IC).ResultsA statistically significant difference for the main effects of tape application [F(2,26)=0.06, p=0.94, M±SD: 0.82±12.55(TT), 1.29±8.64 (MT), 0.42±10.31 (MT); F(2,26)=0.58, p=0.46, M±SD: 0.58±1.38(TT), 0.67±0.65(MT), 0.48±0.97(MT)] and interactions [F(2,26)=0.89, p=0.51; F(2,26)=0.46, p=0.41] on changes of DF and IV were not found regardless of tape application. For MVJ, a statistically significant change across tape application was not found [F(2,26)=0.65, p=0.49]; however, a statistically significant interaction on MVJ was found in the CAI group with KT application[F(2,26)=3.50, p=0.04, M±SD: 0.30±0.69 [Healthy]; −0.36±0.88 [CAI]).ConclusionsThe use of tape did not have any significant impact on ankle biomechanics during landing. Using KT produced a significant change in MVJ in participants with CAI, but the improvement is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. The use of these taping methods to improve ankle biomechanics or improve jump performance in healthy athletes, or those with CAI, is questionable.

Biomechanical Properties of Multi-Swing and Single-Swing Rope Skipping Actions

“…The biomechanical performance analysis methods for the single-swing and triple-swing rope skipping include the literature review method, expert interview method [8], and experimental method. The literature review method mainly refers to reviewing the relevant literature about rope skipping and the application of biomechanics in sports activities to understand the relationship between rope skipping and biomechanics.…”

Effect of non-elastic closed-basket weave ankle taping on muscle activity of tibialis anterior, peroneus longus, medial, and lateral gastrocnemius during jump landing on a hard, flat surface in healthy individuals: a pilot study

“…Most studies have observed the ankle biomechanics and kinetics during landing from a drop jump, 12,13 and showed the use of the nonelastic closed-basket weave taping technique for the prevention strategies of an inversion ankle sprain. Taping can increase kinesthetic awareness and limit the range of motion at the ankle joint, reducing inversion motion.…”