Natalie Martin is Assistant Athletic Trainer at Barry University, Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695.
J Athl Train. 1993 Winter;28(4):324-9.
The prudence of prophylactic ankle taping continues to be questioned as recent studies have identified other forms of ankle stabilization as more effective means of injury prevention. The purpose of our study was to compare the effectiveness of three ankle prophylaxes (adhesive taping, lace-up brace, and semirigid orthosis) with a control condition (no support) in limiting inversion under dynamic loads imposed by repetitive walking (4 mph) and running (9 mph) on an 8.5 degrees laterally tilted treadmill. Ten subjects participated in four separate testing sessions in which they were videotaped while walking and running on a tilted treadmill before and after 20 minutes of vigorous exercise. Average maximum inversion angle was determined through biomechanical analysis of rearfoot motion for each experimental condition and analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc tests. There were significant differences in the average maximum inversion angle between the ankle devices at 4 and 9 mph, and between pre-exercise and postexercise measurements at 4 mph, between the semirigid orthosis and the control condition at 4 and 9 mph, and between the lace-up brace and the control condition at 4 mph. Overall, the semirigid orthosis provided the most inversion restraint during dynamic loading, followed by the lace-up brace, tape, and control condition. We concluded that the lace-up brace and semirigid orthosis evaluated were very similar in restricting inversion, and that both devices limited postexercise inversion significantly more than ankle taping.
预防性的踝关节贴扎的谨慎性一直受到质疑，因为最近的研究已经确定了其他形式的踝关节稳定作为更有效的预防损伤的手段。我们的研究目的是比较三种踝关节预防措施（粘性贴扎、系带支具和半刚性矫形器）与无支撑的控制条件在限制动态负荷下的内翻作用的有效性，这些动态负荷是通过在 8.5 度倾斜的跑步机上重复行走（4 英里/小时）和跑步（9 英里/小时）施加的。10 名受试者参加了四个单独的测试会议，在这些测试会议中，他们在倾斜的跑步机上行走和跑步时被录像，然后在剧烈运动 20 分钟前后进行生物力学分析。通过对每个实验条件下的后足运动进行生物力学分析，确定平均最大内翻角度，并进行重复测量方差分析和 Scheffé事后检验。在 4 和 9 英里/小时的速度下，踝关节装置之间的平均最大内翻角度存在显著差异，在 4 英里/小时的速度下，剧烈运动前后的测量值之间存在显著差异，在 4 和 9 英里/小时的速度下，半刚性矫形器和控制条件之间存在显著差异，在 4 英里/小时的速度下，系带支具和控制条件之间存在显著差异。总的来说，半刚性矫形器在动态加载时提供了最大的内翻限制，其次是系带支具、贴扎和控制条件。我们得出结论，评估的系带支具和半刚性矫形器在内翻限制方面非常相似，并且这两种装置在剧烈运动后都显著限制了内翻。
