Kinesio taping with ballistic six plyometric training on speed, accuracy, target and joint proprioception in fast bowlers with glenohumeral instability

Abstract

Cricket is one of the most popular international sports played worldwide. Ballistic six plyometric training improves throwing activity in throwing sports, improves rotator cuff muscular strength, and prevents and reduces the risk of shoulder injury associated with overhead pitching. Kinesiotaping is used in rehabilitation, as a treatment for sportsrelated injuries, and as a means of injury prevention. The objective of the study was to compare the combined effect of kinesiotaping with ‘ballistic six plyometric training’ and with ballistic six plyometric training alone on speed, accuracy, target and joint proprioception in fast bowlers with mild glenohumeral joint instability. Thirty male semiprofessional fast bowlers in the age group of 20-30 years were included in this study and randomly divided into two groups: group A and group B with 15 players in each group. Group A received kinesiotaping along with ballistic six plyometric training, whereas group B was only given ballistic six plyometric training. Both groups also performed conventional upper extremity workouts. All players were evaluated for bowling speed, accuracy, target and joint proprioception (internal rotation & external rotation) with a radar gun, cricket specific bowling accuracy test, no. of balls hit stump in an over and inclinometer, respectively. Both groups improved significantly at the end of week 8, however, group B showed significant difference for bowling speed, accuracy, target and joint proprioception (P<0.05). Rehabilitation protocol comprising of combined kinesiotaping, plyometrics along with conventional protocol can be beneficial in enhancing performance related variables, i.e. bowling speed, accuracy and target in fast bowlers with mild glenohumeral instability.

Influence of taping on joint proprioception: a systematic review with between and within group meta-analysis

“…Of the 91 included studies (Table S 2 ), 35 were randomized controlled trials [ 54 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 67 , 74 – 78 , 80 , 82 , 83 , 85 , 100 – 119 ], 29 were randomized cross over design [ 48 , 51 , 52 , 56 , 59 , 61 , 66 , 81 , 84 , 90 , 120 – 138 ], 12 were pre-test post-test quasi experimental design [ 53 , 64 , 139 – 148 ], 10 were crossover trials [ 36 , 39 , 50 , 58 , 68 , 88 , 149 – 152 ], two were non-randomized controlled design [ 65 , 153 ], one was a cross-sectional design [ 154 ], and one was a retrospective cohort study [ 87 ]. Additionally, one study presented data from two different studies in which one was a pre-test post-test quasi experimental design and a randomized controlled design [ 86 ].…”

“…The average age in this sample was 35.7 ± 16.6 years. Likewise, 17 studies performed a comparative evaluation by comparing the effectiveness of taping in a group that was subjected to no intervention [ 54 , 55 , 60 , 67 , 74 , 78 , 82 , 101 , 104 – 107 , 110 , 114 , 115 , 117 , 134 ]. Here, data were reported from a total of 273 (116F, 85M) individuals.…”

“…The tapes were classified as either rigid or elastic tapes based on the description provided in the respective studies. Overall, sixty studies had utilized elastic tapes [ 48 , 50 – 54 , 56 – 58 , 65 – 67 , 74 – 79 , 81 , 82 , 84 , 85 , 87 , 88 , 90 , 100 – 102 , 105 – 108 , 111 , 113 , 114 , 116 – 118 , 120 , 123 , 124 , 126 , 129 – 132 , 137 – 147 , 153 , 154 ], and 33 studies had used rigid tapes [ 36 , 39 , 55 , 59 – 62 , 64 , 80 , 83 , 86 , 103 , 104 , 110 , 115 , 119 , 122 , 125 , 127 , 128 , 133 – 136 , 148 – 152 ]. Additionally, four studies had compared the efficacy across two different tapes.…”

“…Seven different types of proprioceptive assessments were used in the included studies to evaluate proprioceptive performance. Here, 71 of the included studies had used joint sense tests [ 36 , 39 , 48 , 50 , 54 – 61 , 65 – 68 , 74 – 78 , 81 – 88 , 100 – 107 , 109 , 110 , 112 – 116 , 118 , 119 , 122 , 124 – 126 , 128 , 129 , 131 , 132 , 134 , 136 – 140 , 142 – 150 , 152 , 153 ], four studies had used threshold to detect of passive motion test [ 62 , 111 , 127 , 133 ], four had used active movement extent discrimination accuracy test [ 51 , 52 , 80 , 90 ], one had used proprioceptive feedback index (i.e., derived from repositioning error and the correlation between instant movement and prototype instant movement) [ 130 ], one study had used active displacement test [ 154 ], one study had added proprioceptive test accuracy scores (i.e., moving target program on an isokinetic dynamometer) [ 120 ], one had used proprioceptive index (i.e., x, y, rotation values) [ 141 ], and one had evaluated the percentage of exact joint position sense trial [ 123 ]. Additionally, seven studies had performed assessment of joint position sense as well as threshold to detection of passive motion [ 53 , 64 , 79 , 108 , 117 , 135 , 151 ].…”

“…The existing reviews are limited from both analytical and methodological points of view on several accounts. First, these reviews do not include several existing high-quality trials [ 48 – 52 , 57 , 64 , 74 – 83 ]. This lack of sufficient data could diminish the power of these meta-analyses and increase the probability that the observed results occurred due to a type II error.…”