1383
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of Taping on Actual and Perceived Dynamic Postural
Stability in Persons With Chronic Ankle Instability
Eamonn Delahunt, PhD, Angela McGrath, BSc, Naoise Doran, BSc, Garrett F. Coughlan, PhD
ABSTRACT. Delahunt E, McGrath A, Doran N, Coughlan
GF. Effect of taping on actual and perceived dynamic postural
stability in persons with chronic ankle instability. Arch Phys
Med Rehabil 2010;91:1383-9.
Objective: To investigate whether 2 different mechanisms
of ankle joint taping ([1] lateral subtalar sling or [2] fibular
repositioning) can enhance actual and perceived dynamic postural stability in participants with chronic ankle instability
(CAI).
Design: Laboratory-based repeated-measures study.
Setting: University biomechanics laboratory.
Participants: Participants (n⫽16) with CAI.
Interventions: Participants performed the Star Excursion
Balance Test (SEBT) under 3 different conditions: (1) no tape,
(2) lateral subtalar sling taping and (3) fibular repositioning
taping.
Main Outcome Measures: Reach distances in the anterior,
posteromedial, and posterolateral directions on the SEBT. Participants’ perceptions of stability, confidence, and reassurance
when performing the SEBT under 2 different taping conditions.
Results: Taping did not improve reach distance on the SEBT
(P⬎.05). Feelings of confidence increased for 56% of participants (P⫽.002) under both tape conditions. Feelings of stability increased for 87.5% of participants (P⬍.001) using condition 2 (lateral subtalar sling taping) and 75% of participants
(P⫽.001) using condition 3 (fibular repositioning taping). Feelings of reassurance increased for 68.75% of participants
(P⫽.001) using condition 2 (lateral subtalar sling taping) and
50% of participants (P⫽.005) using condition 3 (fibular repositioning taping).
Conclusions: No significant change in dynamic postural
stability was observed after application of either taping mechanism; however, participants’ perceptions of confidence, stability, and reassurance were significantly improved. Further
research is necessary to fully elucidate the exact mechanisms
by which taping may help reduce the incidence of repeated
injury in subjects with CAI.
Key Words: Ankle joint; Ankle sprain; Rehabilitation.
© 2010 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation
Medicine
From the School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science
(Delahunt, McGrath, Doran, Coughlan) and Institute for Sport and Health (Delahunt,
Coughlan), University College Dublin, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research
supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.
Reprint requests to Eamonn Delahunt, PhD, School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Population Science, University College Dublin, Health Science Centre,
Belfield, Dublin 4, Republic of Ireland, e-mail: eamonn.delahunt@ucd.ie.
0003-9993/10/9109-00185$36.00/0
doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2010.06.023
NJURY TO THE LATERAL ligament complex of the ankle
Isports
joint is 1 of the most frequently encountered injuries in
medicine. After the initial injury, the potential devel1
opment of CAI is of primary concern to clinicians involved in
the treatment and rehabilitation of musculoskeletal injuries.2
CAI is dependent on the interaction of various mechanical
and functional insufficiencies, which give rise to the 2 frequently encountered clinical phenomena of subjective reporting of “giving way” of the ankle joint and subjective reporting
of “feelings” of ankle joint instability.2 Mechanical insufficiencies proposed to be associated with the development of CAI
include pathologic laxity, articular synovial changes, degenerative changes, and arthrokinematic restrictions.2 Functional
insufficiencies proposed to contribute to the development of
CAI include impaired proprioception, impaired neuromuscular
control, impaired postural control, and deficits in strength.2
Of those functional insufficiencies believed to contribute to
the development of CAI, postural stability has received much
attention. Previous prospective research has indicated that decreased postural stability is a predictor of lower-limb injury
and, in particular, ankle sprain.3,4 A recently published metaanalysis has comprehensively concluded that subjects with CAI
exhibit postural stability deficits in both static and dynamic
situations.5 One measure of dynamic postural stability is the
SEBT. The SEBT involves moving from a start position of
bilateral stance to a single-leg stance while maximally reaching
along set multidirectional lines with the opposite leg without
compromising equilibrium. It has good intra- and intertester
reliability.4,6,7 Olmsted et al8 were the first to investigate the
efficacy of the SEBT in detecting postural stability impairments in a population of patients with CAI. Compared with
healthy controls and the subject’s own uninjured side, decreased mean reach distances in all directions in the CAI group
were observed, suggesting that the SEBT is a functional test
capable of detecting impairment in CAI. Other studies have
described similar deficits in a CAI population.9,10 Recently,
McKeon and Hertel11 indicated that instrumented forceplate
testing is more appropriate for assessing those at risk for ankle
joint injury and postural stability deficits immediately after an
acute injury episode than for detecting deficits associated with
CAI. However, readers also must be cognizant of the fact that
static testing, especially with eyes open, may not optimally test
postural control strategies of subjects with CAI, and perhaps
more dynamic measures are needed to address this issue.
Therefore, the SEBT may be an applicable clinical tool for
assessing postural stability deficits in subjects with CAI.
Prevention of injury and repeated injury have become an
increasingly important focus of practice and rehabilitation,
especially in relation to the ankle joint.12 One successful
List of Abbreviations
CAI
CAIT
SEBT
chronic ankle instability
Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool
Star Excursion Balance Test
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
1384
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
method of reducing the occurrence of ankle joint injury is
through the use of external prophylactic ankle supports, such as
tape. Previous research has shown that ankle joint taping is
most effective in reducing the incidence of repeated injury in
subjects with a history of ankle joint injury.12,13 Two methods
of ankle joint taping that have received little attention in the
literature are the lateral subtalar sling14 and fibular repositioning taping mechanisms.15 The lateral subtalar sling taping
mechanism is based on the fact that severe damage to the
lateral ligament complex of the ankle joint has been associated
with an increased talar tilt.14 This taping technique aims to
resist subtalar inversion. We chose to use this technique because it has been noted that subjects with CAI show increased
inversion of the rear foot during walking and jump landing.16-19
Fibular repositioning tape works on the premise that after an
acute ankle sprain, there is an anterior positional fault at the
inferior tibiofibular joint.15 This premise has recently been
supported by Hubbard et al.20 Furthermore, a recent study by
Moiler et al21 has shown that the use of fibular repositioning
tape significantly reduced the incidence of ankle joint injury in
a group of basketball players. However, the exact mechanism
underlying this reduced incidence of ankle joint injury could
not be elucidated.
Two recently published articles have reported on ankle joint
taping and postural stability in subjects with CAI. In a study by
Sawkins et al,22 the investigators aimed to study the effect of 2
different taping techniques (real vs placebo vs no tape) on
functional performance measured by using a hopping drill and
dynamic postural stability measured by means of performance
on the SEBT in a group of subjects with CAI. Results of the
study did not show a statistically significant effect across
conditions for SEBT reach distance performance or functional
performance. However, a secondary analysis indicated that
both taping mechanisms resulted in increased subject perceptions of stability, confidence, and reassurance when performing
both the functional hopping drill and SEBT. The real taping
technique used involved a combination of 3 stirrups, a figure of
6, and a heel lock, whereas the placebo taping technique
involved application of a 10-cm long inelastic strip placed
above the lateral malleolus in line with the lateral aspect of the
shank. Furthermore, a study by Hopper et al23 investigated the
effect of fibular repositioning tape on parameters of static and
dynamic postural stability, with no positive enhancement of
these parameters observed. However, 1 limitation of this study
was that all outcome measures used were instrumented forceplate measures, which McKeon and Hertel11 previously have
suggested may not be the most sensitive for the measurement
of postural stability in subjects with CAI.
Owing to the potential effects of taping on reducing the
incidence of ankle injury and with decreased postural stability
being reported as a risk factor for ankle joint injury, further
investigations into the effects of taping on a dynamic measure
of postural stability, as well as participants’ perceptions of the
benefits of taping, is warranted. The aim of the present study
was to investigate the effects of 2 different ankle joint taping
mechanisms on participant actual and perceived dynamic postural stability in a group of subjects with CAI.
We chose to use 2 mechanisms of taping that have received
little attention in the literature. The first mechanism of taping
was the lateral subtalar sling because this mechanism of taping
is purported to restrict rear-foot inversion,14 which has previously been shown to be a functional deficiency in subjects with
CAI. 16-19 To our knowledge, only 1 previously published
study has used the lateral subtalar sling mechanism of taping.24
The second mechanism of taping was the fibular repositioning
technique because this has previously been shown to reduce the
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
incidence of ankle joint injury.21 However, the exact mechanism of action could not be elucidated. Furthermore, only 1
previous study has reported on the effects of this mechanism of
ankle joint taping on postural stability, and the outcome measures may not have been the most sensitive measures for
identifying postural stability effects in subjects with CAI.
We hypothesized that both taping mechanisms would be
accompanied by an increase in reach distance on the SEBT
compared with the control untaped trials. Furthermore, we
hypothesized that participants would report increased feelings
of confidence, stability, and reassurance when performing the
SEBT with both mechanisms of ankle joint taping compared
with the control untaped trials.
Participants
Subject recruitment was undertaken by placing notices on
the university sports center and school notice boards. Nineteen
potentially suitable candidates contacted the investigators, expressing an interest in participation in the study. Potentially
interested subjects were interviewed by a member of the research team regarding their ankle joint injury history, and all
interested candidates were also required to complete the CAIT
for their left and right ankle joints.25 Specific inclusion criteria
were a history of 2 or more inversion sprains to the same ankle
joint, a subjective history of episodes of giving way of the
ankle joint, a subjective reporting of feelings of ankle joint
instability during sporting participation, and a CAIT score of
24 or lower. A history of eversion sprain or distal tibiofibular
joint (high ankle sprain) injury precluded a subject from inclusion in the present study. Of 19 potentially suitable candidates,
16 meet the full inclusion criteria. Two subjects were excluded
because they did not score 24 or loweron the CAIT, whereas
another candidate was excluded because of a recent ankle joint
sprain (1 week before the start of the study).
After the initial interview with the research team, 16 participants were included in the study (10 women, 6 men; age,
21.32⫾1.35y; height, 1.76⫾.08m; mass, 74.94⫾10.43kg;
sports participation as follows: 6 participated ⬎6 hours a week,
2 participated 5– 6 hours a week, 4 participated 4 –5 hours a
week, 1 participated 3– 4 hours a week, 1 participated 2 to 3
hours a week, and 3 participated 1 to 2 hours a week; sports
played: 3 played basketball, 3 played GAA (indigenous Irish
field sport), 1 played rugby union, 3 played hockey, 6 attended
the gym).
Ten participants had bilateral CAI, and the remaining 6 had
unilateral CAI. For those with bilateral CAI, the ankle with the
lowest CAIT score was tested. Of 16 participants, 8 had left
ankle instability and 8 had right ankle instability. The mean
CAIT score for left instability was 16.63, and the mean CAIT
score for right instability was 17.38. All participants were
evaluated for mechanical instability using the anterior drawer
test (9 scored 1, 5 scored 2, and 2 scored 3) and talar tilt test (10
negative and 6 positive results) as described by Lynch.26 Mechanical instability was defined as “excessive inversion laxity
of the rear foot or excessive anterior laxity of the talocrural
joint as assessed using instrumented (arthrometry or stress
radiography) or manual stress testing” according to the definition of Delahunt et al.27 The tests of mechanical instability did
not form part of the formal inclusion criteria, but were used to
assess the amount of ankle joint laxity present in each participant. Performance of these tests was carried out by the principal investigator, who is a qualified physiotherapist with 6
years of post qualification clinical experience. Talar tilt was
scored as positive or negative. Laxity on the anterior drawer
test was scored on a scale of 0 to 3: 0 represented no instability
with a firm end feel, 1 represented mild instability, 2 indicated
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
1385
position. The vertical component of ground reaction force data
was used to determine the onset and termination of each trial.
During each trial, participants were required to place their
hands on their hips while reaching in the specified direction.
Furthermore, participants were required to maintain contact
between the forceplate and heel during each trial. A trial was
deemed invalid if participants failed to keep their hands on
their hips, lifted or moved their stance foot, transferred weight
onto the reach foot when touching the measuring tape, failed to
touch the tape, failed to return the reach foot to the starting
position, or lost their balance and failed to maintain a unilateral
stance position during performance of the trial. Invalid trials
were discarded and additional trials were completed.
A mark was made by 1 of the investigators on the directional
component of the SEBT. For ease of quantification of each
reach distance, the line of the SEBT directional component was
simulated by a 1.5-m measuring tape (see fig 1). Reaching
distances were read from the center of the grid to the marked
point of maximum reach. Reach distances were divided by leg
length and multiplied by 100 to calculate a dependent variable
that represents reach distance as a percentage of leg length.
This method has been used previously by Gribble et al.30
Both the order of performance of each test condition and the
order of reaching directions were randomized using a method
of concealed envelopes. The order of reaching directions was
kept consistent between each test condition (ie, no tape, subtalar sling taping, fibular repositioning taping).
Fig 1. SEBT setup on forceplates.
moderate instability, and 3 was characterized by gross instability with a positive sulcus sign.
Ethical approval was received from the university ethical
review board. All participants signed a university-approved
informed consent form on the day of testing.
SEBT Performance
The SEBT was performed with the participant standing
barefoot bilaterally on 2 forceplates.a The anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions of the SEBT were chosen as
per previous studies (fig 1).
Before the start of each test session, each participant was
informed how to perform the test and allowed 4 practice trials
in each direction, as recommended by Robinson and Gribble.28
Three consecutive trials in each direction were performed after
a short rest period.
During performance of the test, each participant initially
stood at the center of a grid laid on the laboratory floor and
extending from the forceplate directly under the test leg. Similar to the protocol explained by Hertel et al,29 a “crosshairs”
was drawn at the center of the grid. The length and width of the
test foot were measured, and the foot was placed such that the
geometric center of the foot was aligned with the intersection
of the crosshairs for each individual trial.
Participants were required to reach as far as possible along
the directional component of the SEBT (ie, anterior, posteromedial, or posterolateral direction) and make a light touch with
the most distal part of the foot. Each trial was initiated when
participants transitioned from double- to single-leg stance, with
the trial ending when subjects returned to a double-leg stance
Forceplate Data
Ground reaction forces were measured at 100Hz while participants performed the SEBT trials. The vertical component of
ground reaction force data was used to determine the onset and
termination of each trial. A threshold of 2.5N was used for
identification of the transition from double- to single-leg stance
and also for the transition from single- to double-leg stance.
Taping Techniques
For consistency, all taping techniques were applied by the
principal investigator. The tape was applied with the participant in a supine position on a plinth. The techniques are as
follows below:
Condition 1: no tape. During condition 1 (no tape), participants performed the SEBT trials without tape applied to
their test ankle joint.
Condition 2: lateral subtalar sling. During condition 2
(lateral subtalar sling), each participant performed the SEBT
trials after application of 2 lateral subtalar slings by the principal investigator. For the first strip, Leukotape P tapeb was
applied from the base of the first metatarsal head on the plantar
aspect of the foot diagonally toward the fifth metatarsal head,
then angled at 45° toward the lateral malleolus around the
posterior Achilles’ tendon and brought anteriorly to finish at
the lower one-third of the tibia above the malleoli, similar to
the technique used by Wilkerson.14 A second reinforcing strip
was applied in the same manner overlapping by half the width
of the first strip. The lateral subtalar sling is shown in fig 2.
Condition 3: fibular repositioning tape. During condition
3 (fibular repositioning tape), each participant performed the
SEBT trials after fibular repositioning tape application applied
by the principal investigator. The initial strip of Leukotape P
started at the distal end of the lateral malleolus. The tape then
was orientated obliquely while a painfree posterolateral glide
was applied to the distal fibula with the tape finishing on the
lower one-third of the tibia above the malleoli. A second
reinforcing strip was applied in the same manner overlapping
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
1386
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
effect sizes for reach differences in an uninjured group and a
CAI group. Using an alpha of .05 and a power of 0.8 with a
correlation of 0.8 among our dependent variables, we computed a sample size of 15 subjects.32 Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test the effects of taping on
parameters of postural stability (SEBT performance). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participants’ responses
to the question of perceptions of stability, confidence, and
reassurance. Furthermore, we used Wilcoxon signed-rank test
to determine participants’ responses to questions relating to
perceptions of stability, confidence, and reassurance. An alpha
level of .05 was chosen. All statistical analyses were performed
using SPSS.c
RESULTS
SEBT Performance
There were no statistically significant differences in reach
distance among the 3 conditions on the SEBT (F6,56⫽1.30;
P⫽.273). Results are listed in table 1.
Fig 2. Lateral subtalar sling.
by half the width of the first. The fibular repositioning tape
application is shown in fig 3 and further detailed in an article
published by Moiler et al.21
Perceptions of Stability, Confidence, and Reassurance
After the completion of each set of SEBT directional trials
under each condition, participants were questioned regarding their perceived levels of stability, confidence, and reassurance when performing the test compared with the practice trials.22 Each participant was required to answer with 1
of the following options: (1) no change, (2) more than the
practice trial, or (3) less than the practice trial. Stability
referred to how steady and controlled the participant felt;
confidence referred to how well the participant believed
he/she could perform the test, and reassurance referred to
how confident the participant was that he/she would not
sprain their ankle while performing the test. For example,
after completion of the SEBT with either taping condition,
participants were asked “when performing the test, how
stable/confident/reassured did you feel compared to the
practice trials?” All questions were presented in written
format to the participant, who was asked to read the questions and tick the appropriate answer. Questions were presented in written format with the aim of negating any bias
that verbal questioning from the investigators could introduce (fig 4).
Statistical Analysis
Sample size was computed using data previously published
by Hale et al,31 who showed low (eg, .41) to moderate (eg, .55)
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
Perceptions of Stability, Confidence, and Reassurance
Participants’ perceptions of stability, confidence, and reassurance on the SEBT as a result of application of the taping
techniques are detailed next and shown in fig 5.
Feelings of confidence increased for 56% of participants
(n⫽9; P⫽.002) under both tape conditions. Feelings of stability increased for 87.5% of participants (n⫽14; P⬍.001) using
condition 2 (lateral subtalar sling taping) and 75% of participants (n⫽12; P⫽.001) using condition 3 (fibular repositioning
taping). Feelings of reassurance increased for 68.75% of participants (n⫽11; P⫽.001) using condition 2 (lateral subtalar
sling taping) and 50% of participants (n⫽8; P⫽.005) using
condition 3 (fibular repositioning taping). No statistically significant differences were noted for participants’ responses comparing the 2 taping conditions (P⬎.05).
DISCUSSION
Our primary hypothesis, that both taping mechanisms would be
accompanied by an increase in reach distance on the SEBT compared with the control untaped trials, was not confirmed by results
of the present study. Our secondary hypothesis, that participants
would report increased feelings of confidence, stability, and reas-
Fig 3. Fibular repositioning tape.
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
1387
Fig 4. Quantification of perceptions of stability, confidence, and reassurance.
surance when performing the SEBT trials with both mechanisms
of ankle joint taping compared with the control untaped trials, was
confirmed by results of the present study.
Results of the present study indicate that the 2 different
taping techniques used did not positively or negatively affect
dynamic postural stability measured using the SEBT.
Results of the present study concur with those observed by
Sawkins et al22 and more recently by Hopper et al.23 In the study
by Sawkins,22 the authors aimed to investigate the effect of 2
different taping techniques (real vs placebo vs no tape) on functional performance and dynamic postural stability in a group of
Table 1: Reach Distance in Each Direction
Direction
Condition 1:
No
Tape
Condition 2:
Lateral
Subtalar Sling
Condition 3:
Fibular
Repositioning
Tape
Anterior
Posteromedial
Posterolateral
76.26⫾3.99
79.78⫾8.97
71.38⫾10.19
77.42⫾3.57
81.44⫾8.96
73.57⫾10.10
77.35⫾3.48
81.49⫾10.39
74.98⫾10.16
NOTE. Values are percentage of leg length (n⫽16 in each condition).
subjects with CAI. Results of the study did not show a statistically
significant effect across conditions for SEBT reach distance performance. The real taping technique used involved a combination
of 3 stirrups, a figure of 6, and a heel lock, whereas the placebo
taping technique involved application of a 10-cm long inelastic
strip placed above the lateral malleolus in line with the lateral
aspect of the shank. Thus, the mechanism of taping used differed
considerably from those in the present study, in which we used a
lateral subtalar sling and fibular repositioning technique. The
recent publication by Hopper23 investigated the effect of fibular
repositioning tape on parameters of static and dynamic postural
stability, with no positive enhancement of these parameters observed. However, the postural stability measures used by these
investigators all involved instrumented forceplate measures,
which may not be the most sensitive for detecting postural stability deficits in subjects with CAI.11 Taken together, results of the
present study along with those of Sawkins,22 and Hopper,23 and
colleagues suggest that taping may not enhance postural stability
in subjects with CAI.
Taping has reduced the incidence of recurrent ankle sprain in
subjects with CAI.12,13 One possible mechanism of action of ankle
joint taping is through a placebo effect; the athlete believes that the
taping technique will reduce their risk of injury.22 In the present
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
1388
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
could provide new insights into how ankle joint taping could
influence functional performance in sports.
The use of taping by clinicians for subjects with CAI requires due consideration and may not be appropriate for all
athletes. It is the responsibility of clinicians to complete a
rigorous physical and sensorimotor evaluation of the specific
functional and mechanical insufficiencies present and then
decide whether taping is likely to be an appropriate prophylactic measure. Particular emphasis should be given to the perception of comfort of the taping technique applied and also to
the particular demands of the sport.
Fig 5. Participants’ perceptions of confidence, stability, and reassurance. The y-axis values represent the number of participants
reporting an increase in confidence, stability, and reassurance. Abbreviations: FRP, fibular repositioning taping mechanism; LSS, lateral subtalar sling taping mechanism.
study, participants were given an explanation of the believed
mechanisms of action of the 2 taping techniques used. Several
participants remarked at how little tape was used for these techniques compared with the more robust traditional ankle-taping
techniques. This may have negatively influenced their perceptions
of the techniques. However, statistical analysis of participants’
responses showed that lateral subtalar sling and fibular repositioning taping improved most participants’ perceptions of stability,
confidence, and reassurance while performing the SEBT. However, these increased feelings of confidence, reassurance, and
stability did not reflect in increased reach distances on the SEBT.
Despite this observation, we believe that every effort should be
made by clinicians to emphasize the potential benefits of ankle
joint taping because this is likely to enhance feelings of confidence, stability, and reassurance.
A recent systematic review has shown that ankle joint taping
can reduce the incidence of ankle joint repeated injury in subjects
with a history of ankle joint sprain.12 Further research is necessary
to fully elucidate the exact mechanisms by which taping may help
reduce the incidence of repeated injury in subjects with CAI. The
seminal work of Hertel2 suggests that the development of CAI is
dependent on the interaction of various mechanical and functional
insufficiencies. Potential mechanical insufficiencies that ankle
joint taping could influence include arthrokinematic restriction
and pathologic laxity, whereas the functional insufficiencies that
ankle joint taping could influence include proprioceptive and
neuromuscular control deficits. Results of a recently published
study24 suggest that taping may provide a more mechanical effect
on the ankle joint by restricting touchdown plantar flexion and
thus reducing vulnerability to ankle sprain, hence influencing any
presence of mechanical laxity and potentially improving neuromuscular control strategies. In a more recent publication, Hertel33
has outlined the spectrum of sensorimotor measures that have
been used to investigate deficits in subjects with CAI. These
sensorimotor measures range from purely passive measures, such
as measures of proprioception, to more dynamic measures replicating normal activities of daily living and athletic participation,
such as walking, running, landing, and cutting. We believe that
further research into the mechanisms of action of ankle joint
taping is warranted and suggest that researchers concentrate on the
mechanical and functional insufficiencies proposed to manifest in
the presence of CAI. Furthermore, research should be undertaken
at the dynamic end of the sensorimotor spectrum because this
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010
CONCLUSIONS
Results of the present study suggest that the 2 mechanisms of
ankle joint taping used (lateral subtalar sling and fibular repositioning) do not positively influence dynamic postural stability
in subjects with CAI. However, taping seems to positively
influence subjects’ perceptions of stability, reassurance, and
confidence when performing a dynamic postural stability task.
This suggests that ankle joint taping can be used in subjects
with CAI, and that every effort should be made by clinicians to
emphasize the potential benefits of taping.
References
1. Fong DT, Hong Y, Chan LK, Yung PS, Chan KM. A systematic
review on ankle injury and ankle sprain in sports. Sports Med
2007;37:73-94.
2. Hertel J. Functional anatomy, pathomechanics and pathophysiology of lateral ankle instability. J Athl Train 2002;37:364-75.
3. McGuine TA, Greene JJ, Best T, Leverson G. Balance as a
predictor of ankle injuries in high school basketball players. Clin
J Sport Med 2000;10:239-44.
4. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, Underwood FB. Star Excursion
Balance Test as a predictor of lower extremity injury in high school
basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:911-9.
5. Arnold BL, De La Motte S, Linens S, Ross SE. Ankle instability
is associated with balance impairments: a meta-analysis. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2009;41:1048-62.
6. Hertel J, Miller SJ, Denegar CR. Intratester and intertester reliability during the star excursion balance tests. J Sports Rehabil
2000;9:104-16.
7. Kinzey SJ, Armstrong CW. The reliability of the star-excursion
test in assessing dynamic balance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
1998;27356-60.
8. Olmstead LC, Carcia CR, Hertel J, Shultz SJ. Efficacy of the star
excursion balance tests in detecting reach deficits in subjects with
chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train 2002;37:501-6.
9. Gribble PA, Hertel J. Considerations for normalizing measures of the
star excursion balance test. Meas Phys Ed Ex Sci 2003;7:89-100.
10. Sefton JM, Hicks-Little CA, et al. Sensorimotor function as a predictor of chronic ankle instability. Clin Biomech 2009;24:451-8.
11. McKeon PO, Hertel J. Systematic review of postural control and
lateral ankle instability, part I: can deficits be detected with
instrumented testing. J Athl Train 2008;43:293-304.
12. Dizon JMR, Reyes JJB. A systematic review on the effectiveness of
external ankle supports in the prevention of inversion ankle sprains
among elite and recreational players. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:309-17.
13. Mickel TJ, Bottoni CR, Tsuji G, Chang K, Baum L, Tokushige
KA. Prophylactic bracing versus taping for the prevention of ankle
sprains in high school athletes: a prospective, randomized trial. J
Foot Ankle Surg 2006;45:360-5.
14. Wilkerson GB. Biomechanical and neuromuscular effects of ankle
taping and bracing. J Athl Train 2002;37:436-45.
15. Mulligan BR. Self treatments for backs, necks, limbs: a new
approach. Wellington (New Zealand): Plane View Services; 2003.
TAPE AND ANKLE INSTABILITY, Delahunt
16. Delahunt E, Monaghan K, Caulfield B. Ankle function during
hopping in subjects with functional instability of the ankle joint.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17:641-8.
17. Delahunt E, Monaghan K, Caulfield B. Altered neuromuscular
control and ankle joint kinematics during walking in subjects with
functional instability of the ankle joint. Am J Sports Med 2006;
34:1970-6.
18. Delahunt E, Monaghan K, Caulfield B. Changes in lower limb
kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity in subjects with functional instability of the ankle joint during a single leg drop jump.
J Orthop Res 2006;24:1991-2000.
19. Monaghan K, Delahunt E, Caulfield B. Ankle function during gait
in patients with chronic ankle instability compared to controls.
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2006;21:168-74.
20. Hubbard TJ, Hertel J, Sherbondy P. Fibular positioning in individuals with self-reported chronic ankle instability. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:3-9.
21. Moiler K, Hall T, Robinson K. The role of fibular tape in the
prevention of ankle injury in basketball: A pilot study. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 2006;36:661-8.
22. Sawkins K, Refshauge K, Kilbreath S, Raymond J. The placebo
effect of ankle taping in ankle instability. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2007;39:781-7.
23. Hopper D, Samsson K, Hulenik CN, Hall T, Robinson K. The
influence of Mulligan ankle taping during balance performance in
subjects with unilateral chronic ankle instability. Phys Ther Sport
2009;10:125-30.
24. Delahunt E, O’Driscoll J, Moran K. Effects of taping and exercise
on ankle joint movement in subjects with chronic ankle instability:
a preliminary investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2009;90:
1418-22.
25. Hiller CE, Refshauge KM, Bundy AC, Herbert RD, Kilbreath SL.
The Cumberland ankle instability tool: a report of validity and
reliability testing. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2006;87:1235-41.
1389
26. Lynch SA. Assessment of the injured ankle in the athlete. J Athl
Train 2002;37:406-12.
27. Delahunt E, Coughlan GF, Caulfield B, Nightingale EJ, Lin
CW, Hiller CE. Inclusion criteria when investigating insufficiencies in chronic ankle instability. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2010; In press.
28. Robinson RH, Gribble PA. Support for the reduction in the number of trials needed for the Star Excursion Balance Test. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:364-70.
29. Hertel J, Braham RA, Hale SA, Olmstead-Kramer LC. Simplifying the Star Excursion Balance Test: analyses of subjects with and
without chronic ankle instability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
2005;36:131-7.
30. Gribble PA, Hertel J, Denegar CR. Chronic ankle instability
and fatigue create proximal joint alterations during performance of the star excursion balance test. Int J Sports Med
2007;28:236-42.
31. Hale SA, Hertel J, Olmsted-Kramer LC. The effect of a 4-week
comprehensive rehabilitation program on postural control and
lower extremity function in individuals with chronic ankle instability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2007;37:303-11.
32. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioural, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;
39:175-91.
33. Hertel J. Sensorimotor deficits with ankle sprains and chronic
ankle instability. Clin Sports Med 2008;27:353-70.
Suppliers
a. AMTI, 176 Waltham St, Watertown, MA 02472.
b. BSN Medical Ltd, Willerby, Hull, East Yorkshire HU10 6WT, UK.
c. Version 15; SPSS Inc, 233 S Wacker Dr, 11th Fl, Chicago, IL
60606.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil Vol 91, September 2010