Premium
Prophylactic ankle bracing reduces rearfoot motion during sudden inversion
Author(s) -
Cordova M. L.,
Dorrough J. L.,
Kious K.,
Ingersoll C. D.,
Merrick M. A.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of medicine and science in sports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.575
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1600-0838
pISSN - 0905-7188
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2006.00561.x
Subject(s) - bracing , physical medicine and rehabilitation , ankle , medicine , physical therapy , brace , physics , anatomy , thermodynamics
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ankle bracing on rearfoot angular displacement and angular velocity during a sudden inversion movement. A 1 × 3 factorial design was used. The single independent variable was ankle brace condition with three levels: semi‐rigid, lace‐up and control. The two dependent variables were rearfoot average angular displacement and average angular velocity. Twenty‐four healthy volunteers participated in this study. A motion analysis system was used to capture, model and calculate two‐dimensional rearfoot motion while the subjects' ankle/foot complex was inverted to 35° on a platform device. All subjects performed five trials of each ankle brace condition, and the average of these trials was used for statistical analysis. The semi‐rigid brace significantly reduced rearfoot angular displacement and angular velocity compared with the lace‐up ( P <0.05) and control conditions ( P <0.05). Additionally, the lace‐up style brace demonstrated significantly less rearfoot angular displacement and angular velocity compared with the control condition ( P <0.05). These results demonstrate that a semi‐rigid ankle brace is more superior then a lace‐up style brace in limiting rearfoot angular displacement and angular velocity. Moreover, the lace‐up style brace offers significant restriction of these measures compared with no support.