The effects of selected ankle prophylaxis on inversion range of motion

Typescript (photocopy).It was the purpose of this study to investigate the supportive capabilities of prophylactically-applied tape and selected prosthetic ankle devices upon inversion range of motion. The subjects for this study were 13 male recreational basketball players ranging in age from 21 to 43 years. The volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to one of five restrictive conditions per day for five testing sessions. The restrictive conditions consisted of a control, closed basketweave ankle taping, and three commercially-manufactured prosthetic ankle devices. The control condition measurement was obtained from each subject during his initial testing date. Range of motion measurements were obtained from each subject prior to participating in three recreational basketball games per session. Range of motion measurements were obtained and recorded both with and without each subject wearing athletic shoes. This exact sequence was repeated at mid-exercise, post-exercise, and postexercise relace. A 5 (RC) * 4 (Time) * 2 (Foot) * 2 (Shoe) ANOVA with repeats on all factors was conducted to determine if any differences existed between treatments. In the event that the omnibus test for interaction was found to be significant at the .05 level, simple main effects were then investigated. If the simple main effects were found to be significant, the Student Newman Keuls procedure was utilize d to determine where the differences existed. Results indicated a significant interaction effect for five of the six 2-way interactions. Specifically, significant interactions were obtained for the following pairs of independent variables: RC x Time, RC x Foot, RC x Shoe, Shoe x Time, and Shoe x Foot. The results of this investigation indicate that two of the three prosthetic devices tested provide range of motion limitations similar to that of tape from the beginning until the end of exercise. A major contention of the manufacturers of these prosthetic devices is that they restrict range of motion as effectively as tape. The results of this investigation appear to confirm this contention. The results of this investigation also seem to indicate that relacing the prosthetic devices after the exercise bout reduces the range of motion significantly from the post-exercise time period