Yeh Huan-Jui, Wu Ruo-Yan
Institute of Public Health, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Taipei Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taipei, Taiwan.
Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Oct 31;70(4):443-451. doi: 10.5606/tftrd.2024.13605. eCollection 2024 Dec.
This study aims to investigate the effects of different kinesiotaping methods on muscle contraction of fatigued biceps.
Between April 01, 2019 to September 30, 2019, a total of 24 adults (11 males, 13 females; mean age: 31.8±6.1 years; range, 24 to 47 years) were recruited in the study. Each participant needed to receive all four types of tape attachment, including facilitation attachment (from origin to insertion), relaxation attachment (from insertion to origin), cross attachment, and control attachment after fatigue procedure. The order of taping approaches was randomly assigned. The outcome parameters were maximal isometric contraction strength, peak contraction speed, maximal 10-s power, and isokinetic contraction work.
The results revealed no significant differences among the four tape attachment methods for any of the parameters. However, the facilitation attachment exhibited the highest trend of improvement in all muscle contraction performance during fatigue, and the cross attachment exhibited the lowest trend of improvement in maximal isometric contraction and speed.
None of the kinesiotape attachment methods significantly enhanced the contraction of fatigued muscles regardless of the attachment direction, including origin to insertion, insertion to origin and cross. Facilitation attachment exhibited the most effective trend of improvement and is, therefore, recommended for clinical applications. Cross attachment was not suggested to use due to the least effective trend.
本研究旨在探讨不同肌内效贴扎方法对疲劳肱二头肌肌肉收缩的影响。
在2019年4月1日至2019年9月30日期间,共有24名成年人(11名男性,13名女性;平均年龄:31.8±6.1岁;范围24至47岁)被纳入本研究。每位参与者在经历疲劳程序后,需要接受所有四种类型的贴扎方式,包括促进贴扎(从起点到止点)、放松贴扎(从止点到起点)、交叉贴扎和对照贴扎。贴扎方式的顺序是随机分配的。观察指标为最大等长收缩力量、峰值收缩速度、最大10秒功率和等速收缩功。
结果显示,对于任何一项指标,四种贴扎方式之间均无显著差异。然而,促进贴扎在疲劳期间所有肌肉收缩表现方面呈现出最高的改善趋势,而交叉贴扎在最大等长收缩和速度方面呈现出最低的改善趋势。
无论贴扎方向是从起点到止点、从止点到起点还是交叉贴扎,肌内效贴扎方式均未显著增强疲劳肌肉的收缩。促进贴扎呈现出最有效的改善趋势,因此推荐用于临床应用。由于效果最差,不建议使用交叉贴扎。