PRINCIPLES OF SPORTS
TAPING
CONTENTS





Definition of Taping
Uses of Taping
Principles of application
Effectiveness and evaluation
Practical application
Definition of Taping
Application of adhesive tape (elastic
or non-elastic) to:


provide support & protection to soft tissues and joints,
and
to minimize swelling and pain after injury
Can be used:
immediately following injury
during rehabilitation e.g. chondromalacia patellae
prophylactic measure e.g. training and competition
Taping Principles

Sound knowledge of anatomy, joint &
tissue mechanics

thorough assessment & diagnosis

Injury mechanics specific to the sport
Is an adjunct to the total injury care
Not
a substitution for treatment &
rehabilitation
Effects of Taping
Mechanical
limits & controls joint movement
limits stretching of soft tissues
compression to oedematous area
maintains desirable alignment
Physiological
 proprioception
prevents & limits swelling
relax protective muscle spasm
‘physiological rest’
 rate of tissue repair
Therapeutic
 pain
 muscle spasm
maintains optional functional ability
 risk of further injury/ irritation
 risk of permanent deformity
Psychological
Types of Tapes

Occlusive vs. Porus
- Rubber-based tapes
- Acrylate tapes

Elastic vs. Non-elastic
- Elastic tape - for compression and generally
ineffective as a support material
- Non-elastic tape - for stability & protection from
further mechanical damage
Non-elastic tape
 support structures like
ligament, joint capsule
 limit joint movement
 protect vs. re-injury
 not for compression
Elastic tape
 compress & support soft
tissues like muscles
 provide compression
 ineffective as a support
material
 Not for first aid use
(compression too severe)
Elastic tape
Hamstring Strain
Lateral
Ligament
Sprain
Non-elastic tape
A-C joint sprain
Turf Toes
Principles of Application
Consider:





Area to be supported
movement to be limited
functional status
modification needed?
assess & analyse
RULE OF THUMB
tape in the direction that
will shorten injured
structures
Application procedures






wash the part
remove hair (prewrap)
check skin condition (blisters, skin
irritation, minor wounds)
orthopaedic felt (bony prominence)
do not use limb as anchor to pull tape off
even overall pressure
Basic Taping
Applications





Anchor Tape
Stirrup / U tape
Spur / Lateral U
/ Gibney
Locking tape
Heel lock
overlap 1/2 - 2/3 of previous turn
not over inflammatory or infectious skin
conditions
remove strapping: snubbed nose scissors
never pull at right angles to the skin or
rip off violently!
Problems in Sports Taping





Wrong application?
Not enough support
Contraindications? (Open skin, infection,
tape allergy)
Signs: circulatory signs, discomfort, skin
laceration, blisters, allergic skin reaction
Other problems: hinder application of other
treatment or performance, psychological
dependence, tapes are expensive!
Evaluation of the
effectiveness of taping





Is it effective in reducing the injury
incidence?
Is it effective after a long period of exercise?
Does it influence performance?
Does it lead to reduction in symptoms?
Is taping superior to bracing or cast
immobilisation?
Is it effective in reducing the injury
incidence?
Two review studies
 Verhagen et al. (2000)
 Quinn et al. (2000) – Cochrane Review
Critical review
Verhagen et al. (2000)
 8 studies included
 Taping  incidence of sprains and
results in less severe sprains
 Brace seems to be more effective in
athletes with previous ankle sprains
Meta-analysis


Quinn et al (2000)
Meta-analysis on the use of external
ankle support towards prevention of
ankle injuries
Meta-analysis
 “Beneficial
effect of external ankle
supports in the form of semirigid or aircast braces to prevent lateral ligament
injury in high risk sporting activities.”
 Subjects
with previous history of ankle
sprain may have risk reduced by wearing
such supports
Meta-analysis
The effect should be taken in the light of:

baseline risk of the injury in the activity,

previous injury status

any possible or perceived loss of
performance

supply and cost of the supportive device
Is it effective after a long period of
exercise?
Greene & Hillman (1990)
 Compare athletic taping vs. semirigid orthosis
inv./ev. restriction before, during & after 3 hour
volleyball practice
 n = 14
Results:
• Maximum reduction in joint restriction due to
taping (both inv. & ev.) occurred 20’ after exercise
• orthosis - only eversion was compromised (?
More effective)
Does it influence performance?
Burks et al (1991)
 analysis of athletic performance with
prophylactic ankle devices
  performance when ankles are taped
 ankle taping  performance in vertical
jump, shuttle run & sprint
  performance in brace is minor
Does it lead to reduction in symptoms?
Cushnaghan et al (1994)
 Medial taping of the patella provides
short term pain relief in patients with
PFJ OA
Kowall et al (1996)
 Efficacy of taping PFJ pain
 no beneficial effect in the addition of
taping to standard PT treatment
Is taping superior to bracing or
cast immobilisation?
Braakman et al (1998)
 5th MTP fracture
 functional taping vs. cast
immobilisation
 Functional recovery: mobility, power
grip, pulling strengths and torque
strengths
 functional taping showed earlier
functional recovery (1 & 4 wks)