450 likes | 547 Views
C omparative Effects of Tape Material Characteristics on Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Motions. Meredith A. Atwood, ATC, LAT Graduate Athletic Training Program University of Tennessee-Chattanooga. Objective.
E N D
Comparative Effects of Tape Material Characteristics on Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Motions Meredith A. Atwood, ATC, LAT Graduate Athletic Training Program University of Tennessee-Chattanooga
Objective • Determine if elastic tape can restrain talocural-subtalar joint displacement or angular motion as effectively as standard non-elastic tape
Background • 23,000 ankle sprains occur per day in the U.S. (Hartel, 2002) • That’s 16 ankle sprains per minute • Ankle sprains take one week to six weeks to heal (Hockenburg, 2001)
Anatomy of the Ankle • Talocrural joint • Subtalar joint • Talocrural-subtalar joint complex
Anterior translation Posterior translation Movement of the Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Complex
Movement of the Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Complex • Inversion tilt • Eversion tilt
Ankle Taping • Non-elastic tape • Most widely used • Most widely debated(Alt, 1999; Cordova, 2002; Myburgh, 1984; Rarick, 1962) • Elastic Tape • gaining favor(Firer, 1990; Passerallo, 1994) • (
Tape • Non-elastic • Standard white athletic tape • Cloth • Zinc Oxide adheres to skin
Tape • Elastic tape • Cohesive adheres to itself, but not to skin • Adhesive adheres to skin - (Andover, 2002; Leuko, 2005)
Protection • Protect ligaments by decreases excessive motion(Callaghan, 1997; Greene, 1990; Rarick, 1962; Ricard, 2000) • Provide mechanical stability(Karlsson, 1993; Laughman, 1980) • Despite loosening does provides support(Alt, 1999; Fumich, 1981; Greene, 1990; Larsen, 1984; Mayburgh, 1984; Ricard, 2000; Rovere, 1988)
Research Hypothesis • Non-elastic tape will restrict inversion tilt more effectively than elastic tape. • Non-elastic tape will restrict anterior translation more effectively than elastic tape
Tape Conditions • Four conditions • non-elastic taped condition • cohesive elastic taped condition • adhesive elastic taped condition • Untaped condition
Subjects • UTC IRB approved • 15 subjects from UTC student population • mean age: 25 + 3.6 years • mean height: 173 + 11.6cm • mean weight: 77 + 11.4kg • Participants received all conditions
Instrument • Ankle Arthrometer (Kovaleski, 2002; Kovaleski, 1999)
Measurements • Anteroposterior translation (mm) • Inversion-eversion tilt (deg) • Pre-exercise & post-exercise
Exercise Program • 1 - Half mile jog • 2 - 300 yard shuttle runs • 4 - figure-of-eight patterns ran in each direction • 2 - one legged hop pattern for each leg
Exercise Program Figure-of-eight run One legged hop pattern
Statistical Analysis • Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs • inversion tilt • anterior translation • 2x3 (trial x condition ) • significance • main effect • Bonferroni adjustment: alpha level = .025
Statistical Analysis • Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs • inversion tilt • anterior translation • post-exercise • Significant difference • Pairwise comparison
Repeated Measures ANOVA Trial x Condition • 2x3 (trial x condition) repeated measures ANOVA was significant for inversion tilt • F 2,28 = 8.24, p = .002 • 1- = .96
Main Effects for Inversion Tilt • Significant difference b/t trials • F 1,14 = 40.67, p = .001 • 1- = 1.00
Main Effects for Inversion Tilt • Significant difference b/t conditions • F 2, 28 = 6.08, p = .006 • 1- = .85
Repeated Measures ANOVA Trial x Condition • Repeated measures trial x condition was not significant for anterior translation • (F 2,28 = .449), p = .643
Main Effects for Anterior Translation • There was not a significant difference b/t trials • F 1, 14 = .131, p = .722 • There was not a significant difference b/t conditions • F2, 28 = .449, p = .643
Repeated Measures ANOVA by Condition Inversion Tilt • Significant difference b/t mean displacement for post-exercise inversion tilt • F 3,42 = 87.26, p = .001 • 1- = .86
Repeated Measures ANOVA by Condition Anterior Translation • There was not a significant difference b/t the mean displacement for post-exercise anterior translation • F 3,42 = .062, p = .980
Pairwise Comparison of Anterior Translation Post-exercise • Taped Comparison p-value • Non-elastic x Cohesive .871 • Non-elastic x Adhesive .810 • Non-elastic x Untaped .920 • Cohesive x Adhesive .933 • Cohesive x Untaped .768 • Adhesive x Untaped .704
Discussion • Results demonstrate that: • non-elastic tape restricts inversion tilt more effectively than elastic tape • anterior translation not affected by tape material
Increase in Displacement for Inversion Tilt • All tape conditions showed an in displacement • Non-elastic had smallest in displacement • Adhesive elastic has greatest in displacement • Similar to previous research (Alt, 1999; Fumich, 1981; Greene, 1990; Larsen, 1984; Mayburgh, 1984)
Anterior Translation • Anterior translation • no significant difference • taped conditions equivalent to untaped condition • tape configuration is more important (Wilkerson,2005)
Comparison of Tape Procedures Post-Exercise WILKERSON ET AL CURRENT STUDY • Inversion Tilt • Untaped 32.66 + 9.1 Untaped 3.21 + 9.2 • Standard 10.20 + 2.4 Non-elastic 12.93 + 3.0 • Modified (STS) 7.19 + 1.8 Cohesive Elastic 16.27 + 4.8 • Adhesive Elastic 15.23 + 2.5 • Anterior Translation • Untaped 9.25 + 2.3 Untaped 8.45 + 1.9 • Standard 6.19 + 1.6 Non-elastic 8.52 + 2.0 • Modified (STS) 4.92 + 1.3 Cohesive Elastic 8.65 + 1.9 • Adhesive Elastic 8.71 + 2.4
Conclusion • Elastic tapes do not restrict inversion as effectively as non-elastic tape • Tape material is not a factor in preventing anterior translation
Future Research • Little done on injured ankles • More research on tape configuration for anterior translation • More research using ankle arthrometer for objective measurements
My Appreciation • Dr. Wilkerson • Dr. Colston • Dr. Whittle • Dr. Kovaleski & Dr. Hollis • Phil Heywood
Questions? Thank You for Your Time. Graduate Athletic Training Program