Preliminary Evidence That Taping Does Not Optimize Joint Coupling of the Foot and Ankle Joints in Patients with Chronic Ankle Instability.
chronic ankle instability
joint coupling
multisegment kinematics
running
taping
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 02 2021
19 02 2021
Historique:
received:
17
01
2021
revised:
06
02
2021
accepted:
11
02
2021
entrez:
6
3
2021
pubmed:
7
3
2021
medline:
27
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Foot-ankle motion is affected by chronic ankle instability (CAI) in terms of altered kinematics. This study focuses on multisegmental foot-ankle motion and joint coupling in barefoot and taped CAI patients during the three subphases of stance at running. Foot segmental motion data of 12 controls and 15 CAI participants during running with a heel strike pattern were collected through gait analysis. CAI participants performed running trials in three conditions: barefoot running, and running with high-dye and low-dye taping. Dependent variables were the range of motion (RoM) occurring at the different inter-segment angles as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between predetermined segments. There were no significant RoM differences for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, the first two subphases only showed RoM changes at the midfoot without apparent RoM reduction compared to the barefoot CAI condition. In the last subphase there was limited RoM reduction at the mid- and rearfoot. Cross-correlation coefficients highlighted a tendency towards weaker joint coupling in the barefoot CAI condition compared to the controls. Joint coupling within the taped CAI conditions did not show optimization compared to the barefoot CAI condition. RoM was not significantly changed for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, there was no distinct tendency towards lower mean RoM values due to the mechanical restraints of taping. Joint coupling in CAI patients was not optimized by taping.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Foot-ankle motion is affected by chronic ankle instability (CAI) in terms of altered kinematics. This study focuses on multisegmental foot-ankle motion and joint coupling in barefoot and taped CAI patients during the three subphases of stance at running.
METHODS
Foot segmental motion data of 12 controls and 15 CAI participants during running with a heel strike pattern were collected through gait analysis. CAI participants performed running trials in three conditions: barefoot running, and running with high-dye and low-dye taping. Dependent variables were the range of motion (RoM) occurring at the different inter-segment angles as well as the cross-correlation coefficients between predetermined segments.
RESULTS
There were no significant RoM differences for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, the first two subphases only showed RoM changes at the midfoot without apparent RoM reduction compared to the barefoot CAI condition. In the last subphase there was limited RoM reduction at the mid- and rearfoot. Cross-correlation coefficients highlighted a tendency towards weaker joint coupling in the barefoot CAI condition compared to the controls. Joint coupling within the taped CAI conditions did not show optimization compared to the barefoot CAI condition.
CONCLUSIONS
RoM was not significantly changed for barefoot running between CAI patients and controls. In taped conditions, there was no distinct tendency towards lower mean RoM values due to the mechanical restraints of taping. Joint coupling in CAI patients was not optimized by taping.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33669704
pii: ijerph18042029
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18042029
pmc: PMC7922002
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013 Nov;45(11):2129-36
pubmed: 23657166
J Sport Rehabil. 2020 Feb 1;29(2):162-167
pubmed: 30526284
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Jul;48(13):1014-8
pubmed: 24255768
Gait Posture. 2007 Mar;25(3):453-62
pubmed: 16965916
J Appl Biomech. 2014 Jun;30(3):366-72
pubmed: 24347533
Gait Posture. 2017 Feb;52:381-399
pubmed: 28063387
J Athl Train. 2019 Jun;54(6):572-588
pubmed: 31162943
J Sport Rehabil. 2016 Feb;25(1):13-22
pubmed: 25658069
J Sport Rehabil. 2020 Mar 1;29(3):373-376
pubmed: 31628269
J Sport Rehabil. 2009 Aug;18(3):375-88
pubmed: 19827501
J Sci Med Sport. 2017 Sep;20(9):835-840
pubmed: 28483559
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2018 May;54:1-7
pubmed: 29501914
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Nov;42(11):2106-21
pubmed: 20351590
Neurophysiol Clin. 2020 Feb;50(1):55-68
pubmed: 32007381
J Athl Train. 2014 May-Jun;49(3):322-30
pubmed: 24840583
J Athl Train. 2019 Jun;54(6):611-616
pubmed: 31161942
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Feb;21(2):168-74
pubmed: 16269208
Gait Posture. 2007 Feb;25(2):295-302
pubmed: 16759862
Am J Med. 2008 Apr;121(4):324-331.e6
pubmed: 18374692
Neurophysiol Clin. 2019 Jun;49(3):263-268
pubmed: 30639034
Physiotherapy. 2016 Sep;102(3):287-93
pubmed: 26422550
Front Physiol. 2020 Mar 24;11:192
pubmed: 32265726
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006 Sep;87(9):1235-41
pubmed: 16935061
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 1999 Dec;9(6):385-9
pubmed: 10597051
J Sci Med Sport. 2016 Jul;19(7):541-6
pubmed: 26251211
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006 Feb;21(2):175-83
pubmed: 16269207
J Sci Med Sport. 2009 Nov;12(6):685-7
pubmed: 18835218
Phys Ther Sport. 2013 Nov;14(4):232-9
pubmed: 23623243
Gait Posture. 2010 Feb;31(2):251-5
pubmed: 19926283
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 Aug;68:80-88
pubmed: 31174142
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Dec;34(12):1970-6
pubmed: 16926342
Gait Posture. 2018 Oct;66:118-123
pubmed: 30176379