The effect of ankle bracing on lower extremity biomechanics during landing: A systematic review

Mason-Mackay, A.R.; Whatman, Chris; Reid, Duncan

doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2015.07.014

“…Although there has been much discussion about the impact of the lace-up and air-cast braces as well as taping on the range of the ankle dorsiflexion (Mason-Mackay et al, 2017;Abian-Vicen et al, 2009;Bot and Mechelen, 1999), the results of this study showed no statistically significant effect of the different ankle support types on the ankle dorsiflexion movement in comparison to the shoe. It should be noted that other studies that have found range limitation with the use of prophylactic bracing and taping (Pasley et al, 2013) conducted ROM measurement through passive tests, which cannot be representative of the true range during a dynamic movement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…www.efsupit.ro 989 1999;), while other authors relate the preventative use of the brace even to injury (Mason-Mackay et al, 2017). However, DiStefano et al (2008) found that long-term use of the ankle brace did not cause any changes in lower extremity kinematics or vertical ground reaction forces in healthy volleyball and basketball athletes, while Riemann et al (2002) report that the use of both the brace and the taping reduce the time required to reach the peak impact forces during dynamic activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2018

JPES

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ankle bracing and functional taping are used from basketball players as a means of ankle injury prevention. Even though their use has been proven to be effective in reducing ankle sprains, they have been accused by many for negatively affecting the performance of athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine how the different ankle external stabilizers affects the ground reaction forces that are developed in the ankle during the lay-up as well as the ankles dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM). 11 healthy male basketball athletes (Age 26+/-2,2) tried 3 different external stabilizers: a lace-up brace, a aircast-stirrup brace and taping, in comparison to simple shoes, while doing 3 lay-ups using each type of stabilizer. The maximum ground reaction forces on the lateral, anterior-posterior, and vertical axes was measured with a force platform, while the maximum angle of ankle dorsiflexion was measured with the Vicon motion analysis system. For the statistical analysis of the results, the non-parametric Friedman test was selected while pairwise comparisons were made with the Wilcoxon Rank Test. The level of statistical significance was set at p <0.05, while the personal impression of the players on how they felt about their performance with each type was also taken into account in order to examine psychological factors. The results showed statistically significant differences in the ground reaction force in the lateral (p = 0.006) and the vertical axis (p = 0.045) between the lace-up brace and the shoe and between the tape and the shoe while there were no statistically significant differences of the different types in dorsiflexion range of motion. In conclusion, none of the three external stabilizers appeared to negatively affect the performance of the athletes. In contrast, the lace-up brace and the tape improved the performance of the athletes in the lay-up as with them the ground reaction force was increased, without, however, limiting the motion range. This specific issue requires further research.

show abstract

“…Herb et al 22 reported a decrease in the magnitude of coupled motion between foot inversion/eversion and shank internal/ external rotation at foot contact when healthy participants and participants with CAI were walking with a taped ankle, although sagittal plane coupling of the foot-shank was not investigated. Additionally, ankle bracing has been shown to limit both passive and dynamic range of motion of the ankle in healthy and CAI populations, 9,14 and previous studies show that individuals with CAI exhibit a more neutral ankle position in swing phase 30 and at foot contact 31 while walking with prophylactic ankle support.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have reported effects of ankle bracing on a variety of movement-related parameters. Specifically, ankle bracing has been shown to alter neuromuscular function of hip, knee, and ankle musculature in CAI populations, [6][7][8] as well as ankle joint position sense, 9 ankle and knee kinematics, [10][11][12] and kinetics 13,14 in healthy populations. This evidence suggests that the application of an ankle brace invokes sensorimotor adaptations, which could result in altered foot, shank, and thigh coordination strategies and ultimately contribute to the prevention of ankle injuries.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ankle Bracing Alters Coordination and Coordination Variability in Individuals With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability

Jagodinsky¹,

Wilburn²,

Moore³

et al. 2021

Journal of Sport Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Ankle bracing is an effective form of injury prophylaxis implemented for individuals with and without chronic ankle instability, yet mechanisms surrounding bracing efficacy remain in question. Ankle bracing has been shown to invoke biomechanical and neuromotor alterations that could influence lower-extremity coordination strategies during locomotion and contribute to bracing efficacy. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ankle bracing on lower-extremity coordination and coordination dynamics during walking in healthy individuals, ankle sprain copers, and individuals with chronic ankle instability. Design: Mixed factorial design. Setting: Laboratory setting. Participants: Forty-eight recreationally active individuals (16 per group) participated in this cross-sectional study. Intervention: Participants completed 15 trials of over ground walking with and without an ankle brace. Main Outcome Measures: Coordination and coordination variability of the foot–shank, shank–thigh, and foot–thigh were assessed during stance and swing phases of the gait cycle through analysis of segment relative phase and relative phase deviation, respectively. Results: Bracing elicited more synchronous, or locked, motion of the sagittal plane foot–shank coupling throughout swing phase and early stance phase, and more asynchronous motion of remaining foot–shank and foot–thigh couplings during early swing phase. Bracing also diminished coordination variability of foot–shank, foot–thigh, and shank–thigh couplings during swing phase of the gait cycle, indicating greater pattern stability. No group differences were observed. Conclusions: Greater stability of lower-extremity coordination patterns as well as spatiotemporal locking of the foot–shank coupling during terminal swing may work to guard against malalignment at foot contact and contribute to the efficacy of ankle bracing. Ankle bracing may also act antagonistically to interventions fostering functional variability.

show abstract

“…other authors relate the preventative use of the brace even to injury (Mason-Mackay et al, 2017). However, DiStefano et al (2008) found that long-term use of the ankle brace did not cause any changes in lower extremity kinematics or vertical ground reaction forces in healthy volleyball and basketball athletes, while Riemann et al (2002) report that the use of both the brace and the taping reduce the time required to reach the peak impact forces during dynamic activities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2018

JPES

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ankle bracing and functional taping are used from basketball players as a means of ankle injury prevention. Even though their use has been proven to be effective in reducing ankle sprains, they have been accused by many for negatively affecting the performance of athletes. The purpose of this study was to examine how the different ankle external stabilizers affects the ground reaction forces that are developed in the ankle during the lay-up as well as the ankles dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM). 11 healthy male basketball athletes (Age 26+/-2,2) tried 3 different external stabilizers: a lace-up brace, a aircast-stirrup brace and taping, in comparison to simple shoes, while doing 3 lay-ups using each type of stabilizer. The maximum ground reaction forces on the lateral, anterior-posterior, and vertical axes was measured with a force platform, while the maximum angle of ankle dorsiflexion was measured with the Vicon motion analysis system. For the statistical analysis of the results, the non-parametric Friedman test was selected while pairwise comparisons were made with the Wilcoxon Rank Test. The level of statistical significance was set at p <0.05, while the personal impression of the players on how they felt about their performance with each type was also taken into account in order to examine psychological factors. The results showed statistically significant differences in the ground reaction force in the lateral (p = 0.006) and the vertical axis (p = 0.045) between the lace-up brace and the shoe and between the tape and the shoe while there were no statistically significant differences of the different types in dorsiflexion range of motion. In conclusion, none of the three external stabilizers appeared to negatively affect the performance of the athletes. In contrast, the lace-up brace and the tape improved the performance of the athletes in the lay-up as with them the ground reaction force was increased, without, however, limiting the motion range. This specific issue requires further research.

show abstract

The effect of ankle bracing on lower extremity biomechanics during landing: A systematic review

Cited by 16 publications

References 49 publications

Untitled

Untitled

Ankle Bracing Alters Coordination and Coordination Variability in Individuals With and Without Chronic Ankle Instability

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About