Burnett et al., J Athl Enhancement 2015, 4:1 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000187
Journal of Athletic Enhancement
Research Article
Effect of Ankle Bracing Vs. Taping on Vertical Jump Performance Kyle A Burnett1, Lee E Brown1, Robert Kersey1 and Kavin KW Tsang1
Abstract The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of ankle taping and bracing on ankle plantar and dorsiflexion range of motion (ROM) and vertical jump performance. Twenty males with no history of current or recent lower extremity injury were recruited to participate. Subjects randomly performed under three conditions on three different days, (T) taping, (B) bracing, and (C) control. Ankle ROM was assessed at four time periods each day: pre-condition, post-condition, post-warm-up and post-jump. Following the condition application, subjects completed a dynamic warm-up and then performed three maximal vertical jumps on a force plate. Relative ground reaction force (relGRF) and relative impact force (relIF) were measured by the force plate, while vertical jump height (VJH) was estimated using the time-in-air equation. Ankle dorsi-plantar flexion ROM was measured using a standard goniometer and expressed in total degrees. The same certified athletic trainer performed all tape and brace applications, as well as all measurements. ANOVA for ROM revealed no differences at pre-condition, but control was significantly greater than T and B at all other time points. Vertical jump performance was not different between conditions. Although T and B ROM was acutely decreased and then increased over time, values were still less than C. Therefore, within the limits of this study, prophylactic taping and bracing may be used to provide ankle support without compromising vertical jump performance. Keywords: Strength; Power; Range of motion; Force
a SciTechnol journal studies have focused on how long the effects of taping and bracing last during exercise [10,14]. Over an extended period of time, ankle taping loosens to a point where it is ineffective while bracing may not loosen as much due to its rigid construction [14,15]. Conflicting evidence exists when examining ankle taping and vertical jump performance with results suggesting both decreases and no differences [1,4,7]. Vertical jump impact force increases from a drop landing have been documented with taping and bracing [5,12,16], while other studies have demonstrated no correlation between ankle ROM and increased impact force [1,2,10]. Limited research has examined ankle ROM, vertical ground reaction force and impact force during a vertical jump. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ankle supports on vertical jump performance and ankle ROM. Materials and Methods Participants Twenty males (age 23.3 ± 2.17 yrs, height 176.7 ± 7.7 cm, mass 76.5 ± 9.4 kg) volunteered to participate. All subjects were free of any moderate to severe lower extremity injuries for the past year and participated in a form of recreational athletics. Each subject read and signed a University Institutional Review Board approved informed consent document prior to participation. Experimental procedure Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three different conditions on three different days with approximately 24 hours rest between sessions. Subjects wore the same shoes they would normally use for participation in their sporting activity, as well as similar clothing. Height (Seca Stadiometer, Ontario, CA) and mass (digital scale, Ohaus, Pine Brook, NJ, Model # ES200L) were recorded on the initial day of testing.
The most common injury among active individuals is inversion ankle sprains, which represent nearly 50% of all athletic injuries [15]. Therefore, use of ankle supports is common among athletes [6-8]. However, these methods may also involve an underlying hindrance as the use of prophylactic support may decrease ankle range of motion (ROM), specifically ankle dorsi-plantar flexion [3,9-11]. Restricted dorsi-plantar ROM may decrease the ability to push off the floor and absorb shock from a vertical jump. These limitations may result in increased impact force, possible injury risk, or decreased athletic performance [12,13].
Day 1: Subjects randomly completed one of three conditions: tape (T), brace (B), and control (C). Each condition was applied by the same Certified Athletic Trainer. Subjects sat on a treatment table with legs extended and removed their shoes. They actively moved to the end of plantar and dorsiflexion while their pre-condition ROM was measured and recorded. Ankle ROM was measured with a hand held goniometer (Baseline, White Plains, NY, Model # 12-1002). Immediately after the daily condition application, post-condition ROM was measured and recorded. Subjects then put on their shoes and performed a standardized dynamic warm-up twice for 10 meters. The exercises performed were high knee pulls, Frankenstein’s (walking while kicking leg horizontal and touching with opposite hand then alternating sequence), and forward gate swings (walking
To determine the effectiveness of various types of ankle support, researchers have studied their effects on athletic performance. Recent
Table 1: Mean ± SD for vertical jump height (VJH), relative ground reaction force (relGRF) and relative impact force (relIF) by condition.
Introduction
*Corresponding author: Robert Kersey, Professor of Kinesiology, Director of Athletic Training Education Program, California State University, Fullerton, 800 North State College Blvd, Fullerton, CA, 92834-6870, USA, Tel: (657) 278-2676; E-mail:
[email protected] Received: December 21, 2014 Accepted: March 02, 2015 Published: March 07, 2015
International Publisher of Science, Technology and Medicine
Variables
Tape
Brace
Control
VJH (cm)
36.27 ± 7.49
36.80 ± 8.47
37.20 ± 8.26
relGRF (N/kg)
22.77 ± 2.03
23.17 ± 2.77
23.24 ± 2.46
relIF(N/kg)
57.65 ± 13.08
56.70 ± 15.11
57.71 ± 14.12
All articles published in Journal of Athletic Enhancement are the property of SciTechnol, and is protected by copyright laws. Copyright © 2014, SciTechnol, All Rights Reserved.
Citation: Burnett KA, Brown LE, Kersey R, Tsang KKW (2015) Effect of Ankle Bracing Vs. Taping on Vertical Jump Performance. J Athl Enhancement 4:1
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000187
Days 2 and 3: These consisted of the same protocol as Day 1 with the exception of use of a different condition.
Taping procedure Prior to taping, heel and lace pads (Cramer products, Inc., Gardner, KS, Model # 082514), skin lubricant (Cramer Skin Lube, Gardner, KS, Model # 192542), tape under wrap (Mueller Sports Medicine, Inc., Prairie du Sac, WI, Model # 130702), and tape adherent (Cramer tape adherent, Gardner, KS, Model # 204033) were applied to both ankles. The tape used was 1½ inch Zonas athletic tape (Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Skillman, NJ, Model # 005190). The taping technique was a modified closed basket weave, which consisted of four anchor strips; three starting near the base of the calf and one at the base of the 5th metatarsal, three medial to lateral stirrups; three cover strips applied from a superior to inferior direction moving towards the malleoli, one figure-of-eight, one set of bilateral heel locks, and a continuation of figure-of-eight and bilateral heel locks [9,16].
90
*
85 80 Ankle Total ROM (deg.)
while flexing the hip and knee to horizontal then abducting the hip then alternating sequence). Subjects then returned to the table, removed their shoes and a post warm-up ROM was measured and recorded. Finally, subjects stood on the force plate with both feet and performed a countermovement vertical jump with hands on their hips. They completed three practice jumps for familiarization then three maximal jump trials with 15 s rest. After jump trials, subjects returned to sit on the table, removed their shoes, and post-jump ROM was measured and recorded.
75 #
70 65 60 55 50 Pre Condition
Post Condition Tape
Brace
Post Warm-up
Post Jump
Control
Figure 1: Mean ± SD for ankle ROM. *Greater than tape and brace. # Greater than tape.
post-condition and post-warm-up, control was significantly greater than both tape and brace and brace was significantly greater than tape. In the post-jump, control was significantly greater than tape and brace, but there were no differences between tape and brace (Figure 1).
Discussion
The ankle braces were Zamst (Zamst Tokyo, Japan, Model # A1). This brace is a slip on style with medial and lateral inner stays. It also has one stirrup strap and one lateral strap allowing for individualized fitting.
This study examined the effects of ankle supports on vertical jump performance and ankle ROM. The main results revealed that taping and bracing had no effect on vertical jump performance, even though total ROM decreased acutely following ankle support application then increased linearly with activity. However, ankle ROM was still decreased following jumping in the supported conditions. Therefore, it appears that dorsi-plantar ROM decreases associated with ankle supports do not compromise vertical jump performance or landing force absorption.
Force plate
Range of motion
Vertical ground reaction force was measured on an AMTI force plate (Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA), sampling at 1000 Hz. Data was collected, stored and analyzed on a computer running custom LabVIEW software (version 2013, National Instruments Corporation, Austin, TX). Vertical jump height was estimated using the time in the air equation (Height=(g· t2)/8) Where g is gravity (9.81) and t is flight time)
There has been much investigation into ankle ROM and the restriction that prophylactic supports necessitate [2,14,17,18]. Many studies have investigated changes in ROM over time, as well as after certain jumping activities [2,14,17,18]. In the current study, ankle taping and bracing significantly decreased total ROM of dorsi-plantar flexion. This is in agreement with Purcell et al. [14], who examined subjects with taping and found that plantar and dorsiflexion were significantly decreased before and after 30 minutes of exercise.
Brace
Statistical analyses Data were analyzed using SPSS 21.0 statistical software (SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL). Three separate 1×3 (condition) ANOVA’s were used to analyze vertical jump height (VJH), relative ground reaction force (relGRF), and relative impact force (relIF). A 3×2×4 (condition × ankle × time) ANOVA was used to analyze ankle ROM. Significance was determined a-priori as an Alpha of 0.05.
Results Vertical jump performance was not significantly different between conditions for any variable (Table 1). For ROM, there was a significant two-way interaction of condition and time. This was followed up with four 1×3 ANOVA’s, one for each time between conditions. There were no significant differences between left and right ankles, therefore further analyses were only performed for right ankle data. In the precondition there was no significant difference between conditions. For Volume 4 • Issue 1• 1000186
Cordova et al. [17] reported similar results after investigating the influence of external ankle supports on joint mechanics during drop landings. Ankle ROM was significantly decreased in both tape and brace conditions during a complete landing phase. Their study differed from ours as they specifically examined joint ROM from initial contact to the end of the landing phase. Delahunt, O’Driscoll and Morgan [18] evaluated ankle taping and exercise on ankle ROM and reported ankle taping resulted in significantly less ROM pre and post-exercise compared to a control condition, however, there was no significant difference before and after exercise following taping. This is similar to the current study that even though ROM increased linearly with activity and time in both support conditions, it remained significantly less than control. Lastly, DiStefano et al. [2] investigated ROM changes during a drop jump landing. Their results indicated that bracing led to a significant decrease in ROM measured from the point of foot contact to the end of the landing phase. This is • Page 2 of 4 •
Citation: Burnett KA, Brown LE, Kersey R, Tsang KKW (2015) Effect of Ankle Bracing Vs. Taping on Vertical Jump Performance. J Athl Enhancement 4:1
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000187 similar to our results and indicates that before and after an exercise task, ankle total ROM is decreased. Lindley et al. [15], suggested that ankle supports may not have an effect on functional ROM, which is the difference between plantar and dorsiflexion. Therefore, instead of a jump trial, they measured ankle ROM during a run. They reported only one of the brace conditions had a significant effect on functional range of motion. However, the tape and brace did not affect any of the ROM measurements. These results may have differed from ours because Lindley measured ROM while running, while we measured ROM following a vertical jump. Also, the braces were different which could have resulted in different restrictions with regard to plantar and dorsiflexion. Lastly, their taping procedures were different than ours, as they appeared to have used less tape than our study. This could have allowed for more ankle plantar and dorsi flexion, while our taping procedure may have provided greater restriction.
Vertical jump performance We found no significant differences in vertical jump performance between the three conditions. Ground reaction force at takeoff is important to performance and a reduction may lead to a decrease in height jumped. It is very important to be aware that even though dorsi-plantar ROM was decreased, neither ground reaction force or jump height was altered by ankle supports. Abian-Vicen et al. [1] similarly reported that vertical jump height (without arm swing) and GRF were not decreased following ankle taping. Contrary to these and our results, Sanioglu et al. [7] examined the effect of ankle taping on vertical jump in taekwondo athletes and reported that tape significantly decreased vertical jump height. However, their subjects performed the countermovement jump with arm swing, which could have increased body momentum, thereby altering jump height. Both studies were different from ours in regards to taping technique, which could also result in different outcomes. We utilized pre-wrap so the tape wouldn’t directly adhere to the skin, while they taped directly to the skin. In addition, the taping procedures in these studies were also different which could be why Abian-Vicen reported no differences while Sanioglu did. In another study, MacKean et al. [4] evaluated ankle taping and bracing effects on vertical jump in female basketball players. They determined jump height was significantly decreased with ankle supports when compared to no support. These differences compared to our study could also be due to the use of different ankle braces and taping techniques.
Relative impact force In the current study, we identified no significant difference in relative impact force between conditions. Similar to our study, Distefano et al. [2] also reported no significant increases in impact force with either taping or bracing, even though the ankle braces were different. DiStefano also reported an increase in knee flexion angle at initial contact with ankle supports, which could be related to force absorption through this joint. Abian-Vicen [1] indicated a 12% increase in impact force when landing during the tape condition. This was particularly interesting when compared to our study, because the jumping protocol was the same in both studies. These disparate results may be due to different taping procedures applied by different people. In a contrasting study, Riemann et al. [10] examined drop landings before and after exercise. They reported no significant differences in impact force between taping and bracing. However, they did find that time to peak force at landing was significantly greater in tape and brace conditions when compared to control. This implies that ankle taping and bracing may decrease ankle stress by absorbing force over Volume 4 • Issue 1• 1000186
a longer time. Although they did not study ROM, their similar results concerning impact force may be related to ankle taping and bracing loosening over time. In another drop landing study, Cordova et al. [17] demonstrated that the first peak impact force was decreased with tape when compared to control or a semi-rigid brace. However, the second impact force was not significantly different between conditions. This could be due to a more restrictive taping technique, thus initial force absorption was decreased in ankle dorsiflexion. However, after initial contact, joint compensation allowed force absorption through the knees and hips.
Conclusions Our results demonstrate that taping and bracing significantly decreased ankle dorsi-plantar ROM when compared to control but did not negatively or positively affect vertical jump performance or landing parameters. Although ankle ROM did increase across time with activity, both taping and bracing conditions were still less than the unsupported control condition. Therefore, within the constraints of this study, prophylactic taping and bracing may be used to provide ankle support without compromising vertical jump performance or force absorption landing parameters. References 1. Abián-Vicén J, Alegre LM, Fernández-Rodríguez JM, Lara AJ,Meana M (2008) Ankle taping does not impair performance in jump or balance tests. J Sports Sci Med 7: 350-356. 2. DiStefano LJ, Padua DA, Brown CN, Guskiewicz KM (2008) Lower extremity kinematics and ground reaction forces after prophylactic lace-up ankle bracing. J Athl Train 43: 234-241. 3. Gross MT, Liu HY (2003) The role of ankle bracing for prevention of ankle sprain injuries. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 33: 572-577. 4. MacKean LC, Bell G, Burnham RS (1995) Prophylactic ankle bracing vs. taping: effects on functional performance in female basketball players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 22: 77-81. 5. Verhagen EA, van der Beek AJ, van Mechelen W (2001) The effect of tape, braces and shoes on ankle range of motion. Sports Med 31: 667-677. 6. Nishikawa T, Kurosaka M, Mizuno K, Grabiner M (2000) Protection and performance effects of ankle bracing. Int Orthop 24: 285-288. 7. Sanioglu A, Ergun S, Erkmen N, Taskin H, Goktepe A (2009) The effect of ankle taping on isokinetic strength and vertical jumping performance in elite taekwondo athletes. Isokinet Exerc Sci 17: 73-78. 8. Brizuela G, Llana S, Ferrandis R, García-Belenguer AC (1997) The influence of basketball shoes with increased ankle support on shock attenuation and performance in running and jumping. J Sports Sci 15: 505-515. 9. Prentice WE, Arnheim DD (2002) Arnheim’s principles of athletic training: A competency based approach. McGraw-Hill, New York. 10. Riemann BL, Schmitz RJ, Gale M, McCaw ST (2002) Effect of ankle taping and bracing on vertical ground reaction forces during drop landings before and after treadmill jogging. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 32: 628-635. 11. Verbrugge JD (1996) The effects of semirigid Air-Stirrup bracing vs. adhesive ankle taping on motor performance. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 23: 320-325. 12. Hodgson B, Tis L, Cobb S, Higbie E (2005) The effect of external ankle support on vertical ground-reaction force and lower body kinematics. J Sport Rehab 14: 301-312. 13. Yi CH, Brunt D, Kim HD, Fiolkowski P (2003) Effect of ankle taping and exercise on EMG and kinetics during landing. J Phys Ther Sci 15: 81-85. 14. Purcell SB, Schuckman BE, Docherty CL, Schrader J, Poppy W (2009) Differences in ankle range of motion before and after exercise in 2 tape conditions. Am J Sports Med 37: 383-389. 15. Lindley TR1, Kernozek TW (1995) Taping and semirigid bracing may not affect ankle functional range of motion. J Athl Train 30: 109-112.
• Page 3 of 4 •
Citation: Burnett KA, Brown LE, Kersey R, Tsang KKW (2015) Effect of Ankle Bracing Vs. Taping on Vertical Jump Performance. J Athl Enhancement 4:1
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000187 16. Norkin CC, White DJ (1995) Measurement of Joint Motion: A Guide to Goniometry. (4th edtn), F.A. Davis Company, Philadelphia. 17. Cordova ML, Takahashi Y, Kress GM, Brucker JB, Finch AE (2010) Influence of external ankle support on lower extremity joint mechanics during drop landings. J Sport Rehabil 19: 136-148.
18. Delahunt E, O'Driscoll J, Moran K (2009) Effects of taping and exercise on ankle joint movement in subjects with chronic ankle instability: a preliminary investigation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 90: 1418-1422.
Author Affiliation
Top
Department of Team Sports, School of Physical Education & Sports Science, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
1
Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of SciTechnol submissions
50 Journals 21 Day rapid review process 1000 Editorial team 2 Million readers More than 5000 Publication immediately after acceptance Quality and quick editorial, review processing
Submit your next manuscript at ● www.scitechnol.com/submission
Volume 4 • Issue 1• 1000186
• Page 4 of 4 •
