1 / 45

C omparative Effects of Tape Material Characteristics on Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Motions

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.

julian-anthony
Download Presentation

C omparative Effects of Tape Material Characteristics on Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Motions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparative Effects of Tape Material Characteristics on Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Motions Meredith A. Atwood, ATC, LAT Graduate Athletic Training Program University of Tennessee-Chattanooga

  2. Objective • Determine if elastic tape can restrain talocural-subtalar joint displacement or angular motion as effectively as standard non-elastic tape

  3. 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)

  4. Anatomy of the Ankle • Talocrural joint • Subtalar joint • Talocrural-subtalar joint complex

  5. Ligaments of the Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Complex

  6. Ligaments Talocrural Joint

  7. Ligaments of Subtalar Joint

  8. Anterior translation Posterior translation Movement of the Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Complex

  9. Movement of the Talocrural-Subtalar Joint Complex • Inversion tilt • Eversion tilt

  10. 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) • (

  11. Tape • Non-elastic • Standard white athletic tape • Cloth • Zinc Oxide adheres to skin

  12. Tape • Elastic tape • Cohesive adheres to itself, but not to skin • Adhesive adheres to skin - (Andover, 2002; Leuko, 2005)

  13. 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)

  14. 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

  15. Methods

  16. Tape Conditions • Four conditions • non-elastic taped condition • cohesive elastic taped condition • adhesive elastic taped condition • Untaped condition

  17. 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

  18. Instrument • Ankle Arthrometer (Kovaleski, 2002; Kovaleski, 1999)

  19. Measurements • Anteroposterior translation (mm) • Inversion-eversion tilt (deg) • Pre-exercise & post-exercise

  20. 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

  21. Exercise Program Figure-of-eight run One legged hop pattern

  22. Statistical Analysis • Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs • inversion tilt • anterior translation • 2x3 (trial x condition ) • significance • main effect • Bonferroni adjustment: alpha level = .025

  23. Statistical Analysis • Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs • inversion tilt • anterior translation • post-exercise • Significant difference • Pairwise comparison

  24. Results

  25. 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

  26. Main Effects for Inversion Tilt • Significant difference b/t trials • F 1,14 = 40.67, p = .001 • 1-  = 1.00

  27. Main Effects for Inversion Tilt • Significant difference b/t conditions • F 2, 28 = 6.08, p = .006 • 1-  = .85

  28. Loosening of Inversion (post-exercise minus pre-exercise)

  29. Repeated Measures ANOVA Trial x Condition • Repeated measures trial x condition was not significant for anterior translation • (F 2,28 = .449), p = .643

  30. 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

  31. 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

  32. Pairwise Comparison Inversion Tilt Post-exercise

  33. Pairwise Comparison Inversion Tilt Post-exercise

  34. 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

  35. 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

  36. Discussion

  37. Discussion • Results demonstrate that: • non-elastic tape restricts inversion tilt more effectively than elastic tape • anterior translation not affected by tape material

  38. 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)

  39. Anterior Translation • Anterior translation • no significant difference • taped conditions equivalent to untaped condition • tape configuration is more important (Wilkerson,2005)

  40. 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

  41. Conclusion • Elastic tapes do not restrict inversion as effectively as non-elastic tape • Tape material is not a factor in preventing anterior translation

  42. Future Research • Little done on injured ankles • More research on tape configuration for anterior translation • More research using ankle arthrometer for objective measurements

  43. My Appreciation • Dr. Wilkerson • Dr. Colston • Dr. Whittle • Dr. Kovaleski & Dr. Hollis • Phil Heywood

  44. Questions? Thank You for Your Time. Graduate Athletic Training Program

More Related