Dept of Sport, Health and Exercise Science, University of Hull, Kingston upon Hull, UK.
J Sport Rehabil. 2013 Aug;22(3):170-6. doi: 10.1123/jsr.22.3.170. Epub 2013 Jan 23.
Ankle injuries are common in soccer and may result in ongoing functional deficiency. Ankle-joint prophylactic support is hypothesized to reduce the risk of injury. Analysis of the effects of prophylactic support has so far lacked application to soccer. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to illustrate the effects of tape and brace on selected proprioceptive components and range of motion (ROM) before, after, and during a soccer-match-simulation protocol.
A crossover study design was used to investigate plantarflexion (PF) ROM, inversion (INV) ROM, and joint-position sense (weight bearing and non-weight-bearing [NWBJPS]; ± error) in tape, brace, and control conditions. Measures were gathered from the dominant leg in a biomechanics laboratory at 0, 15, 30, and 45 min of a soccer-specific aerobic field test 90-min (SAFT90) protocol.
Eight healthy male subjects (age 20.5 ± 0.5 y) experienced the 3 conditions in random order with 7 d between conditions.
The tape condition used an open basket-weave technique; the brace was an AirCast AirSport brace. For the control condition no prophylactic support was applied.
Application of prophylactic support significantly decreased active ROM in PF and INV (P < .05), with tape performing better than the brace (0 min). Tape lost its restrictive benefits by 15 min (P < .001) and was no different than control, while the brace maintained some effect until 45 min. Application of prophylactic support increased NWBJPS performance (P < .01; 0 min); by 15 min the tape had lost its proprioceptive benefit (P < .01) compared with the brace.
Our findings suggest that the clinical usefulness of ankle-joint prophylactic support is limited if the aim is to restrict ROM and improve proprioceptive capability under soccer-specific conditions. The relative benefits of each type of support need to be considered in the context of the time-specific nature of the activity.
足球运动中常见踝关节损伤，可能导致持续的功能缺陷。踝关节预防性支撑被假设可以降低受伤风险。但到目前为止，对预防性支撑效果的分析还没有应用于足球。因此，本研究的目的是在足球模拟比赛方案前后和期间，说明胶带和支具对选定本体感觉成分和运动范围（ROM）的影响。
使用交叉研究设计来研究在胶带、支具和对照条件下，跖屈（PF）ROM、内翻（INV）ROM 和关节位置感（承重和非承重[非承重 JPS]；±误差）。在一项特定于足球的有氧场测试 90 分钟（SAFT90）方案的 0、15、30 和 45 分钟时，从生物力学实验室的优势腿上收集措施。
8 名健康男性受试者（年龄 20.5±0.5 岁）以随机顺序经历 3 种条件，每种条件之间间隔 7 天。
胶带条件采用开放式篮式技术；支具为 AirCast AirSport 支具。对照条件下不使用预防性支撑。
预防性支撑的应用显著降低了 PF 和 INV 的主动 ROM（P<0.05），胶带的效果优于支具（0 分钟）。胶带在 15 分钟时失去了其限制作用（P<0.001），与对照相同，而支具直到 45 分钟仍保持一定效果。应用预防性支撑可提高非承重 JPS 性能（P<0.01；0 分钟）；在 15 分钟时，胶带与支具相比，本体感觉益处丧失（P<0.01）。
如果目的是在特定于足球的条件下限制 ROM 并提高本体感觉能力，那么踝关节预防性支撑的临床效果是有限的。在考虑活动的时间特异性性质时，需要考虑每种支撑类型的相对益处。
