Lower Extremity Kinematics and Ground Reaction Forces After Prophylactic Lace-Up Ankle Bracing

Abstract

Context: Long-term effects of ankle bracing on lower extremity kinematics and kinetics are unknown. Ankle motion restriction may negatively affect the body's ability to attenuate ground reaction forces (GRFs).Objective: To evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of ankle bracing on lower extremity kinematics and GRFs during a jump landing.Design Setting: Sports medicine research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: A total of 37 healthy subjects were assigned randomly to either the intervention (n 5 11 men, 8 women; age 5 19.63 6 0.72 years, height 5 176.05 6 10.58 cm, mass 5 71.50 6 13.15 kg) or control group (n 5 11 men, 7 women; age 5 19.94 6 1.44 years, height 5 179.15 6 8.81 cm, mass 5 74.10 6 10.33 kg).Intervention(s): The intervention group wore braces on both ankles and the control group did not wear braces during all recreational activities for an 8-week period.Main Outcome Measure(s): Initial ground contact angles, maximum joint angles, time to reach maximum joint angles, and joint range of motion for sagittal-plane knee and ankle motion were measured during a jump-landing task. Peak vertical GRF and the time to reach peak vertical GRF were assessed also.Results: While participants were wearing the brace, ankle plantar flexion at initial ground contact (brace 5 356 6 136, no brace 5 386 6 156, P 5 .024), maximum dorsiflexion (brace 5 216 6 76, no brace 5 226 6 66, P 5 .04), dorsiflexion range of motion (brace 5 566 6 146, no brace 5 596 6 166, P 5 .001), and knee flexion range of motion (brace 5 796 6 166, no brace 5 826 6 166, P 5 .036) decreased, whereas knee flexion at initial ground contact increased (brace 5 126 6 96, no brace 5 96 6 96, P 5 .0001). Wearing the brace for 8 weeks did not affect any of the outcome measures, and the brace caused no changes in vertical GRFs (P . .05).Conclusions: Although ankle sagittal-plane motion was restricted with the brace, knee flexion upon landing increased and peak vertical GRF did not change. The type of lace-up brace used in this study appeared to restrict ankle motion without increasing knee extension or vertical GRFs and without changing kinematics or kinetics over time.

Weight-Bearing Dorsiflexion Range of Motion and Landing Biomechanics in Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability

“…Therefore, when efforts are made to increase dorsiflexion ROM in persons with deficits, a reciprocating improvement in landing biomechanics may also be anticipated. This concept is supported by DiStefano et al, 38 who determined that limiting ankle sagittal-plane ROM with an ankle brace resulted in immediate decreases in ankle and knee sagittal-plane ROM during landing. In addition, the presence of a dorsiflexion ROM deficit is accompanied by decreased self-reported function associated with activities of daily living and sport-related activities in persons with CAI 39 and patients who have sustained acute ankle sprains.…”

Asymmetrical loading demands associated with vertical jump landings in people with unilateral transtibial amputation

“…However, for the participants with TTA, asymmetries were generally substantial with relatively low F 2 magnitudes on the prosthetic side and F 2 magnitudes comparable with those of the ND participants on the intact side. While it is not possible to directly compare the F 2 magnitudes with the literature because of the substantially reduced heights from which the participants with TTA landed, we noted that the participants with TTA experienced similar F 2 magnitudes on the intact side compared with ND jumpers in literature performing drop landings from 0.30 m [9,[33][34], despite landing from heights of only 0.15 ± 0.06 m. These reduced FHs, compared with ND participants in literature [35][36], are consistent with a previous study using recreationally active people with amputation [19] and may be related to their reduced capacity to produce the required mechanisms to propel the body into flight [18].…”

Understanding the Effect of High-Cut Shoes, Running Shoes and Prophylactic Supports on Ankle Stability When Performing a “V”-Cut Movement

“…It also has an elastic cuff that wraps around the front of the brace. 12 The running shoe used in the investigation was the individual participants own footwear which were traditional in the construction and cushioning across the midsole. The high-cut basketball shoe (Converse basketball shoes, high top, A100086CV) was the same for all participants and possessed a rigid sole with limited cushioning relative to the running shoes.…”

“…8 If regular running shoes are to be used, the addition of ankle bracing through prophylactic supports may be beneficial since the device has been shown to reduce the risk of injury. 11,12,23 Further still, although the cut of the ankle is thought to be a risk factor for injury, there is still uncertainty concerning the beneficial effects of shoe collar height for ankle sprain prevention. 9 Gottschalk & Pepple, 24 found that high-cut shoes did not show greater prevention of ankle sprains compared to low-cut shoes especially for those who had no history of ankle sprains.…”

“…[7][8][9][10] The occurrence of an initial injury then acts as a predisposing factor for recurrent injuries as well as chronic ankle joint instability and degeneration. 11,12 The lateral ligaments work alongside the peroneal muscles to control the level of lateral movement experienced by the ankle. 13 When the loads are excessive, there is a greater chance of ankle sprain or tear occurring.…”