Post on 29-Dec-2015
transcript
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)
Ankle Taping
Non-elastic tape Most widely used Most widely debated
(Alt, 1999; Cordova, 2002; Myburgh, 1984; Rarick, 1962)
Elastic Tapegaining favor
(Firer, 1990; Passerallo, 1994)
(
Tape
Elastic tapeCohesive
adheres to itself, but not to skin
Adhesiveadheres 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 conditionsnon-elastic taped conditioncohesive elastic taped conditionadhesive elastic taped conditionUntaped condition
Subjects
UTC IRB approved
15 subjects from UTC student populationmean age: 25 + 3.6 yearsmean height: 173 + 11.6cmmean weight: 77 + 11.4kg
Participants received all conditions
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
Statistical Analysis Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs
inversion tiltanterior translation
2x3 (trial x condition )significancemain effect
Bonferroni adjustment: alpha level = .025
Statistical Analysis
Separate Repeated Measures ANOVAs inversion tiltanterior 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
Restriction of Inversion Tilt
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pre PostTrial
Inve
rsio
n T
ilt (
deg
)
non-elastic
cohesive
adhesive
Main Effects for Inversion Tilt
Significant difference b/t conditions
F 2, 28 = 6.08, p = .006
1- = .85
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
In
versio
n D
isp
lacem
en
t
Non Elastic Cohesive Adhesive
Loosening of Inversion (post-exercise minus pre-exercise)
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
trialsF 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
Pairwise Comparison Inversion Tilt Post-exercise
Tape Comparison p-value Non-elastic to Cohesive elastic
.006
Non-elastic to Adhesive elastic
.004
Cohesive elastic to Adhesive elastic
.167
Tape comparison p-value Non-elastic to Untaped condition
.001
Cohesive elastic to Untaped condition
.001
Adhesive elastic to Untaped condition
.001
Pairwise Comparison Inversion Tilt Post-exercise
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 translationno 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