No abstract

II.

Our purpose was to analyze the effects of 4 weeks of visual gait biofeedback (GBF) and impairment‐based rehabilitation on gait biomechanics and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Twenty‐seven individuals with CAI participated in this randomized controlled trial (14 received no biofeedback (NBF), 13 received GBF). Both groups received 8 sessions of impairment‐based rehabilitation. The GBF group received visual biofeedback to reduce ankle frontal plane angle at initial contact (IC) during treadmill walking. The NBF group walked for equal time during rehabilitation but without biofeedback. Dependent variables included three‐dimensional kinematics and kinetics at the ankle, knee, and hip, electromyography amplitudes of 4 lower extremity muscles (tibialis anterior, fibularis longus, medial gastrocnemius, and gluteus medius), and PROs (Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM‐ADL), FAAM‐Sport, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and Global Rating of Change (GROC)). The GBF group significantly decreased ankle inversion at IC (MD:‐7.3º, g = 1.6) and throughout the entire stride cycle (peak inversion: MD:‐5.9º, g = 1.2). The NBF group did not have significantly altered gait biomechanics. The groups were significantly different after rehabilitation for the FAAM‐ADL (GBF: 97.1 ± 2.3%, NBF: 92.0 ± 5.7%), TSK (GBF: 29.7 ± 3.7, NBF: 34.9 ± 5.8), and GROC (GBF: 5.5 ± 1.0, NBF:3.9 ± 2.0) with the GBF group showing greater improvements than the NBF group. There were no significant differences between groups for kinetics or electromyography measures. The GBF group successfully decreased ankle inversion angle and had greater improvements in PROs after intervention compared to the NBF group. Impairment‐based rehabilitation combined with visual biofeedback during gait training is recommended for individuals with CAI.

Context: To investigate the effects of midfoot joint mobilization and a 1-week home exercise program, compared with a sham intervention, and home exercise program on pain, patient-reported outcomes, ankle–foot joint mobility, and neuromotor function in young adults with chronic ankle instability. Design: Crossover clinical trial. Methods: Twenty participants with chronic ankle instability were instructed in a stretching, strengthening, and balance home exercise program and were randomized a priori to receive either midfoot joint mobilizations (forefoot supination, cuboid glide, and plantar first tarsometatarsal) or a sham laying of hands on the initial visit. Changes in foot morphology, joint mobility, strength, dynamic balance, and patient-reported outcomes assessing pain, physical, and psychological function were assessed pre to post treatment and 1 week following post treatment. Participants crossed over to receive the alternate treatment and were assessed pre to post treatment and 1 week following. Linear modeling was used to assess changes in outcomes. Results: Participants demonstrated significantly greater perceived improvement immediately following midfoot mobilization in the single assessment numeric evaluation (sham: 5.0% [10.2%]; mobilization: 43.9% [26.2%]; β: 6.8; P < .001; adj R2: .17; Hedge g: 2.09), and global rating of change (sham: −0.1 [1.1]; mobilization: 1.1 [3.0]; β: 1.8; P = .01; adj R2: .12; Hedge g: 0.54), and greater improved 1-week outcomes in rearfoot inversion mobility (sham: 4.4° [8.4°]; mobilization: −1.6° [6.1°]; β: −6.37; P = .01; adj R2: .19; Hedge g: 0.81), plantar flexion mobility (sham: 2.7° [6.4°]; mobilization: −1.7° [4.3°]; β: −4.36; P = .02; adj R2: .07; Hedge g: 0.80), and posteromedial dynamic balance (sham: 2.4% [5.9%]; mobilization: 6.0% [5.4%]; β: 3.88; P = .04; adj R2: .10; Hedge g: 0.59) compared to the sham intervention. Conclusion: Greater perceived improvement and physical signs were observed following midfoot joint mobilization.