Prophylactic ankle bracing reduces rearfoot motion during sudden inversion

Cordova, Mitchell L.; Dorrough, J. L.; Kious, K.; Ingersoll, C D; Merrick, Mark A.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2006.00561.x

Cited by 21 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reduction for the peak inversion velocity was similar, with values of 38%, 23%, and 20%. The results are in agreement with the inversion ROM reduction 7,11 and velocity reduction 7 previously reported in literature. The results from this study further demonstrated that the Element brace was effective in resisting a sudden inversion perturbation and supported the hypothesis of the study.…”

Section: Lateral Cutsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Anatomical reflective markers were used to define joint centers and placed at the left and right anterior superior iliac spines, superior iliac crests, posterior superior iliac spines, and greater trochanters, and right femoral epicondyle, right medial and lateral malleoli, and the right first and fifth metatarsal (eg, landing 21,25,32,33 and lateral cut 6,18,28 movements), during which ankle sprains typically occur. More recently, Cordova and colleagues 7 showed that a semirigid ankle brace is more effective in reducing rearfoot angular displacement and velocity than a lace-up brace, but the lace-up brace was more effective than no brace. A few studies examining lateral cutting with ankle braces have focused only on performance, 26 kinematic restrictions, 18,28 or ground reaction force (GRF), and electromyography.…”

Section: Participants Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 3-D kinematic angles and moments were defined by the right-hand rule in Visual3D and followed a Cardan x-y-z lated to performance (peak dorsiflexion angle, peak eversion velocity, second peak horizontal and vertical GRFs, and second peak eversion moment) for the 2 dynamic movements. 1,6,7,18,28 A 2-by-4 (gender-by-brace) mixeddesign analysis of variance (ANOVA) was first used to assess gender difference for each movement, with gender as the between-subject factor and the brace as the within-subject factor. Post hoc comparisons were conducted simultaneously with the ANOVA to detect specific differences among the braces, with a Bonferroni procedure to adjust the significant First peak lateral ground reaction force (impact peak)…”

Section: Data and Statistical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of an Ankle Brace With a Subtalar Locking System in Inversion Control in Dynamic Movements

Zhang¹,

Wortley²,

Chen³

et al. 2009

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

t he ankle joint is the most commonly injured joint during sports participation. 3,13,14,19 The most recent National Collegiate Athletic Association injury data over 16 years (1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993)(1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004) showed that ankle ligamentous injuries represent the highest injury rate at 14.9% of all reported injuries in 15 sports, ranging from 2.8% of all injuries for women's ice hockey to 26.6% for men's basketball. 19 Basketball, volleyball, soccer, and lacrosse are among the sports with the highest ankle injury rate. It was reported that up to 80% t Study deSign: Controlled laboratory study.t objectiveS: To examine effectiveness of an ankle brace with a subtalar locking system in restricting ankle inversion during passive and dynamic movements.t background: Semirigid ankle braces are considered more effective in restricting ankle inversion than other types of brace, but a semirigid brace with a subtalar locking system may be even more effective.t MethodS: Nineteen healthy subjects with no history of major lower extremity injuries were included in the study. Participants performed 5 trials of an ankle inversion drop test and a lateralcutting movement without wearing a brace and while wearing either the Element (with the subtalar locking system), a Functional ankle brace, or an ASO ankle brace. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess brace differences (P.05).t reSultS: All 3 braces significantly reduced total passive ankle frontal plane range of motion (ROM), with the Element ankle brace being the most effective. For the inversion drop the results showed significant reductions in peak ankle inversion angle and inversion ROM for all 3 braces compared to the no brace condition; and the peak inversion velocity was also reduced for the Element brace and the Functional brace. In the lateral-cutting movement, a small but significant reduction of the peak inversion angle in early foot contact and the peak eversion velocity at push-off were seen when wearing the Element and the Functional ankle braces compared to the no brace condition. Peak vertical ground reaction force was reduced for the Element brace compared to the ASO brace and the no brace conditions. t concluSionS: These results suggest that the tested ankle braces, especially the Element brace, provided effective restriction of ankle inversion during both passive and dynamic movements.

show abstract

Section: Lateral Cutsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Participants Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data and Statistical Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy of an Ankle Brace With a Subtalar Locking System in Inversion Control in Dynamic Movements

Zhang¹,

Wortley²,

Chen³

et al. 2009

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, investigations 26-29 of 3-dimensional motion analysis consistently showed higher peak angular velocities in trials of running, cutting, and jump landings when sprains occurred. We did not test angular velocities in the present study; however, Cordova et al 30 and Tang et al 31 demonstrated reduced angular excursion and velocity during inversion triggered by a tilting platform in participants wearing a semirigid ankle brace compared with those wearing a lace-up brace and control conditions. The more pronounced stabilization effect of the hinged Ankle X model and the nonhinged model might be due to their design, which encompasses the ankle more than the hinged Embrace model does; the latter has a narrower plastic stirrup at both sides of the ankle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Ankle Braces With and Without Free Rotation in the Sagittal Plane

Alfuth

Klein

Koch³

et al. 2014

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Various designs of braces including hinged and nonhinged models are used to provide external support of the ankle. Hinged ankle braces supposedly allow almost free dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the foot in the sagittal plane. It is unclear, however, whether this additional degree of freedom affects the stabilizing effect of the brace in the other planes of motion.Objective: To investigate the dynamic and passive stabilizing effects of 3 ankle braces, 2 hinged models that provide free plantar flexion-dorsiflexion in the sagittal plane and 1 ankle brace without a hinge.Design: Crossover study. Setting: University Movement Analysis Laboratory.Patients or Other Participants: Seventeen healthy volunteers (5 women, 12 men; age ¼ 25.4 6 4.8 years; height ¼ 180.3 6 6.5 cm; body mass ¼ 75.5 6 10.4 kg).Intervention(s): We dynamically induced foot inversion on a tilting platform and passively induced foot movements in 6 directions via a custom-built apparatus in 3 brace conditions and a control condition (no brace).Main Outcome Measure(s): Maximum inversion was determined dynamically using an in-shoe electrogoniometer. Passively induced maximal joint angles were measured using a torque and angle sensor. We analyzed differences among the 4 ankle-brace conditions (3 braces, 1 control) for each of the dependent variables with Friedman and post hoc tests (P , .05).Results: Each ankle brace restricted dynamic foot-inversion movements on the tilting platform as compared with the control condition, whereas only the 2 hinged ankle braces differed from each other, with greater movement restriction caused by the Ankle X model. Passive foot inversion was reduced with all ankle braces. Passive plantar flexion was greater in the hinged models as compared with the nonhinged brace.Conclusions: All ankle braces showed stabilizing effects against dynamic and passive foot inversion. Differences between the hinged braces and the nonhinged brace did not appear to be clinically relevant.

show abstract

“…In order to prevent ankle sprain injury, taping and bracing are commonly used by athletes (Cordova et al, 2007). However, these methods restrict the freedom of ankle joint motion and hence affect the performance in sports (Hume & Gerrard, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of ankle sprain motion from common sporting activities by dorsal foot kinematics data

Chan¹,

Fong²,

Chung³

et al. 2010

Journal of Biomechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prophylactic ankle bracing reduces rearfoot motion during sudden inversion

Cited by 21 publications

References 39 publications

Efficacy of an Ankle Brace With a Subtalar Locking System in Inversion Control in Dynamic Movements

Efficacy of an Ankle Brace With a Subtalar Locking System in Inversion Control in Dynamic Movements

Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Ankle Braces With and Without Free Rotation in the Sagittal Plane

Identification of ankle sprain motion from common sporting activities by dorsal foot kinematics data

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About