Richard C. Metcalfe is.
J Athl Train. 1997 Apr;32(2):136-40.
There are several types of ankle prophylactics available. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moleskin tape, linen tape, and a lace-up brace on motor performance and ankle/subtalar range of motion (ROM).
PERFORMANCE WAS MEASURED IN CENTIMETERS AND SECONDS FOR VERTICAL JUMP AND SOUTHEAST MISSOURI (SEMO) AGILITY TEST, RESPECTIVELY, UNDER FOUR CONDITIONS: control/no support, tape (T), tape with moleskin stirrup reinforcement (TwMSR), and a lace-up brace (B). Motor tests were conducted on two separate days. On another day ankle/ subtalar ROM was measured before, during, and after 20 minutes of continuous exercise under the four conditions. All tests were conducted in the field house at Northem Illinois University.
Ten college females with no recent history of ankle injury volunteered to participate in the study.
Vertical jump was measured using a Vertec jump stand (centimeters), and the Southeast Missouri (SEMO) agility test was measured with a stopwatch (seconds) under the four conditions. Ankle/subtalar ROM was measured before, during, and after a 20-minute exercise protocol by a goniometer under the four conditions. The tape (T) application was a closed basketweave, the tape with moleskin stirrup reinforcement (TwMSR) consisted of a closed basketweave and a moleskin stirrup (7.62 cm, 3 inches), and the brace(B) was a Swede-O Universal (Swede-O, Inc, North Branch, MN).
Vertical jumps were significantly shorter for all three ankle prophylactics when compared with the control/no-support condition. Among the three prophylactics, the vertical jumps were the same. Slower performance times were recorded for all three prophylactics as compared with the control/no-support condition. There were no significant differences, however, among the three ankle prophylactics. In comparison with the control/no-support condition, the TwMSR application significantly restricted four of the four ROMs (plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, inversion, and eversion) during the 20-minute exercise protocol. The T application significantly restricted three of the four ROMS (all ROMs except plantar flexion), and the B application also significantly restricted three of the four ROMs (all ROMs except eversion) during the 20-minute exercise protocol in comparison with the control/no- support condition.
There does not appear to be any benefit in choosing one prophylactic over the others if near optimal performance and adequate ankle/subtalar restriction is desired. Other factors, such as comfort, ease of application, and cost, should be considered.
有几种类型的踝关节防护用具。本研究的目的是比较磨毛胶带、亚麻胶带和系带式支具对运动表现和踝关节/距下关节活动范围（ROM）的影响。
分别在四种情况下（对照/无支撑、T 带、T 带加磨毛马蹄形支撑带（TwMSR）和系带式支具（B））测量垂直跳跃和东南密苏里州（SEMO）敏捷测试的厘米和秒。运动测试在两天进行。另一天，在四种情况下连续 20 分钟运动后，测量踝关节/距下关节 ROM。所有测试均在北伊利诺伊大学的体育馆进行。
10 名无近期踝关节受伤史的女大学生自愿参加本研究。
垂直跳跃使用 Vertec 跳跃台（厘米）测量，东南密苏里州（SEMO）敏捷测试使用秒表在四种情况下测量。在四种情况下，使用量角器在 20 分钟运动方案前后测量踝关节/距下关节 ROM。T 带应用为封闭式网眼结构，TwMSR 带由封闭式网眼结构和磨毛马蹄形支撑带（7.62 厘米，3 英寸）组成，支具（B）为 Swede-O 通用型（Swede-O，Inc，北布鲁克，MN）。
与对照/无支撑条件相比，所有三种踝关节防护用具的垂直跳跃都明显更短。在三种防护用具中，垂直跳跃高度相同。与对照/无支撑条件相比，所有三种防护用具的运动表现时间都更慢。然而，三种踝关节防护用具之间没有显著差异。与对照/无支撑条件相比，TwMSR 应用在 20 分钟运动方案中显著限制了四个 ROM（跖屈、背屈、内翻和外翻）。T 带应用显著限制了四个 ROM 中的三个（除跖屈外的所有 ROM），B 带应用也显著限制了四个 ROM 中的三个（除外翻外的所有 ROM）。
如果需要接近最佳表现和充分的踝关节/距下关节限制，那么在选择防护用具时，似乎没有任何一种比其他防护用具更具优势。其他因素，如舒适度、易用性和成本，也应考虑在内。
