3-D analysis of a functional reach test in subjects with functional ankle instability (2008)

Motte de la S

Publicatie jaar: 2008

3-D kinematics and kinetics of the lower extremity during the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) have not been examined in FAI subjects. Additionally, the effects of Kinesio® tape use in subjects with functional ankle instability (FAI) during functional tasks is uninvestigated.

To determine if lower extremity kinematics and kinetics differed in FAI subjects using Kinesio® tape during maximal SEBT reach.

Twenty subjects with FAI (Age=24.2±3.8yrs; Ht=169±11.6cm; Wt=69±12.4kg) and twenty uninjured subjects (Age=25.7±5.6yrs; Ht=170.1.4±8.8cm; Wt=69.9±10.5kg) with no history of ankle sprain. FAI was operationally defined as repeated episodes of ankle “giving way” and/or ankle “rolling over”, regardless of neuromuscular deficits or pathologic laxity. All FAI subjects scored < 26 on the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool.

SEBT reaches included the anteromedial, medial, and posteromedial directions. FAI subjects used their unstable side as the stance leg, while control subjects were side-matched to the FAI group. The stance leg ankle was taped using 1) Kinesio® tape and the Kinesio taping method (Kinesio method); 2) white linen tape with the Kinesio method; 3) Kinesio® tape along the distal peroneals tendons (lateral method); 4) white tape with the lateral method. Three-dimensional lower extremity kinematics, kinetics, and force plate data were collected during SEBT performance. A repeated measures ANOVA analyzed the effects of group, tape, tape method, and reach direction on all variables (α=0.05). Tukey HSD post-hoc analyses were performed for significant interactions.

Normalized reach distance was not significantly different between groups in any direction (F2,76=1.16, P=.32). A significant four-way interaction for tape, method, direction, and group (F2,72=3.874, P=.03) was found. Post-hoc testing showed FAI subjects exhibited hip abduction while control subjects used hip adduction (Condition 1: .65±8.23° vs. -2.14±8.51°; Condition 2: 1.29±7.71° vs. -1.75±8.29°; Condition 3: 1.08±8.39° vs. -1.88±18.33°; Condition 4: 2.13±7.62° vs. -1.54±6.61°). Additionally, a significant difference in FAI subjects’ hip abduction angles between the white tape/Kinesio method (.65±8.23°) and Kinesio tape/Kinesio method (1.08±8.39°) was found.

These results indicate that FAI subjects’ movement strategies
differ from those of uninjured subjects. Furthermore, the use of Kinesio® tape at a distal joint can alter proximal joint movement in subjects with FAI.

Referenties: Universiteit Verginia