EXAMINING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ANKLE PROPHYLAXES ON REDUCING LATERAL ANKLE SPRAIN MECHANICS FOLLOWING EXERCISE

Abstract

Lateral ankle sprains are the most common injury among collegiate athletes. Because of this, prophylactic ankle devices like taping and bracing are widely used to reduce the risk of sustaining this injury. Though there is some literature that shows how effective different taping and bracing methods are at restricting ankle inversion following exercise, most measurements taken are limited to patient-motivated ones such as a Y-balance test, non-weight bearing assessments, and measurements that are taken immediately after the device was applied. Since athletes are prone to injuries during exercise, measuring the effectiveness of ankle bracing and taping should be done after an exercise protocol via a dynamic walkway. The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in time to maximal inversion, velocity of inversion, and maximal inversion following exercise in various ankle prophylactic conditions, as well as patient perceived comfort of the devices. The restrictiveness of two taping methods and one ankle brace were measured, as well as participant-perceived comfort rating. A total of 15, physically active subjects were asked to report for four days of testing: one day for each condition (white cloth tape, self-adherent tape, lace-up ankle brace, and control). The subject was then asked to complete an exercise protocol to mimic sports participation. Following the exercise protocol, the subject was fitted with a wireless electrogoniometer to the tested ankle, and the ankle mechanics assessment on the perturbation walkway was done. Finally, subjects assessed their comfort rating of the prophylactic device on a VAS scale. A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was calculated for each of the four dependent variables, and the level of statistical significance was set to α<0.05. A Hedges g effect size was also calculated for each dependent variable relationship. There was a significant decrease in range of motion between the prophylactic devices F(3,42)=6.769, p=0.001, η2=0.668, 1-β=0.950, with the brace resulting in 14.2 ± 0.7 degrees, control 17.8 ± 0.7 degrees, self-adherent tape was 16.4 ± 0.8 degrees, and white tape was 16.4 ± 0.9 degrees. Follow-up analysis showed there was not a statistically significant effect for prophylactic conditions for time to max inversion, with the brace having 152.5 ± 10.6 ms, the control having 125.9 ± 5.7 ms, self-adherent tape 126.7 ± 6.7 ms, and white tape at 143.1 ± 10.3 ms. There was a statistically significant effect for prophylactic condition for the dependent variable velocity, F(2.122,29.714)=14.706, p<0.001, η2=0.942, 1-β=1.00, with the brace having 93.3 ± 7.3 deg/s, control 148.9 ± 7.1 deg/s, self-adherent tape 137.6 ± 9.3 deg/s, and the white tape 124.5 ± 8.8 deg/s. Large effect sizes were noted between some variables, which may show a clinical difference, albeit no statistical significance. A large effect size showed that the brace was perceived as more comfortable when compared to the self-adherent tape (g = 2.1) and white cloth tape (g = 2.2). As shown by the statistical analysis and data, the lace-up ankle brace may be the most effective prophylaxis at reducing overall ankle range of motion and is also perceived as more comfortable.