1991
DOI: 10.2519/jospt.1991.13.1.11
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Swede-O-Universal® Ankle Support and Aircast® Sport-Stirrup™ Orthoses and Ankle Tape in Restricting Eversion-Inversion Before and After Exercise

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
18
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
3
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…27 The various forms of ankle support (tape and braces) available are generally considered effective in providing mechanical stability while restricting joint range of motion. [28][29][30][31][32] Although the use of external ankle support is effective in providing joint mechanical stability, its effect on sensorimotor function is less well understood. Improvement in proprioception and sensorimotor function has been shown to occur, not only through the use of exercise and rehabilitation, [33][34][35] but also through stimulation of cutaneous mechanoreceptors near and around the ankle through the application of ankle support 36 and tape.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…27 The various forms of ankle support (tape and braces) available are generally considered effective in providing mechanical stability while restricting joint range of motion. [28][29][30][31][32] Although the use of external ankle support is effective in providing joint mechanical stability, its effect on sensorimotor function is less well understood. Improvement in proprioception and sensorimotor function has been shown to occur, not only through the use of exercise and rehabilitation, [33][34][35] but also through stimulation of cutaneous mechanoreceptors near and around the ankle through the application of ankle support 36 and tape.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, despite its effectiveness in the limitation of the ankle's ROM (range of movement) [2,5,6,9,13,23,26,27], its effect on the ROMs during the specific sports techniques involved in the mechanism of injury is not clear, because most of the studies on the mechanical effects of ankle taping have used static tests for the measurement of ROM. The effectiveness of taping decreases during the exercise because of the tape loosening and the loss of tape adherence to skin [3,7,8,10,12,14,16]. In addition, the majority of the studies have not controlled the quantity and quality of the intervention on the subjects, because they were carried out during training sessions or actual competitions, where each player performs different tasks and has different periods of intervention depending on the game position.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Burks et al (4) Prophylactic ankle stabilizers have been tested under a variety of experimental conditions. Biomechanically, they have been reported to significantly limit ankle inversion and eversion range of motion preexercise, during, and postexercise (1,7,8,10,11,12,13,15). Clinically, prophylactic ankle stabilizers have been shown to be efficacious in reducing the incidence of ankle injuries in the athletic setting (22,23,25).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%