Effectiveness of Novel Ankle Prophylactic Compared With Lace-Up Brace or Tape

in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $24.95

Student 1 year subscription

USD  $74.00

1 year subscription

USD  $99.00

Student 2 year subscription

USD  $141.00

2 year subscription

USD  $185.00

Context: Conventional ankle prophylactics restrict harmful ankle inversion motions that lead to injury. But these existing prophylactics also limit other ankle motions, potentially leading to detriments in functional joint capacity. The ankle roll guard (ARG) may alleviate the prevailing issues of existing ankle prophylactics and prevent harmful ankle inversion, while allowing other joint motions. Objective: This technical report sought to compare the ARG’s ability to prevent ankle inversion, but not restrict other ankle motions with existing prophylactics. Design: Repeated-measures study. Setting: Motion capture laboratory. Participants: Thirty participants. Intervention: Each participant had dominant limb ankle kinematics recorded during 5 successful trials of a sudden inversion event and 30-cm drop landing task with each of 4 conditions (ARG, ASO ankle stabilizer [brace], closed-basket weave athletic tape [tape], and unbraced [control]). Main Outcome Measures: Peak ankle inversion angle, range of inversion motion (ROM), and time to peak inversion during the sudden inversion event, and ankle plantar- and dorsiflexion ROM during the drop landing were submitted to a 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance to test the main effect of prophylaxis. Results: Participants exhibited greater inversion ROM with control compared with tape (P = .001), and greater plantar- and dorsiflexion ROM with ARG and control compared with brace (P = .02, P = .001) and tape (P = .02, P < .001). It took significantly longer to reach peak ankle inversion with brace and tape compared with ARG (P < .001, P = .001) and control (P = .01, P = .01). No significant difference in peak ankle inversion was observed between any condition (P > .05). Conclusion: The ARG may prevent ankle inversion angles where injury is thought to occur (reportedly >41°), but is less restrictive than existing prophylactics. The less restrictive ARG may make its use ideal during rehabilitation as it allows ankle plantar- and dorsiflexion motions, while preventing inversion related to injury.

The authors are with the Department of Kinesiology, Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA.

Brown (tynbrown@boisestate.edu) is corresponding author.
  • 1.

    Garrick JG, Requa RK. Role of external support in the prevention of ankle sprains. Am J Sports Med. 1973;5(5):200203.

  • 2.

    Norkus SA, Floyd RT. The anatomy and mechanisms of syndesmotic ankle sprains. J Athl Train. 2001;36(1):6873. PubMed ID: 16404437

  • 3.

    Anderson DL, Sanderson DJ, Hennig EM. The role of external nonrigid ankle bracing in limiting ankle inversion. Clin J Sport Med. 1995;5(1):1824. PubMed ID: 7614076 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Eils E, Rosenbaum D. The main function of ankle braces is to control the joint position before landing. Foot Ankle Int. 2003;24(3):263268. PubMed ID: 12793492 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Hall EA, Simon JE, Docherty CL. Using ankle bracing and taping to decrease range of motion and velocity during inversion perturbation while walking. J Athl Train. 2016;51(4):283290. PubMed ID: 27111586 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Zhang S, Wortley M, Chen Q, Freedman J. Efficacy of an ankle brace with a subtalar locking system in inversion control in dynamic movements. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2009;39(12):875883. PubMed ID: 20026883 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Cordova ML, Takahashi Y, Kress GM, Brucker JB, Finch AE. Influence of external ankle support on lower extremity joint mechanics during drop landings. J Sport Rehabil. 2010;19(2):136148. PubMed ID: 20543215 doi:

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Hertel J, Corbett RO. An updated model of chronic ankle instability. J Athl Train. 2019;54(6):572588. PubMed ID: 31162943 doi:

  • 9.

    Fong DTP, Hong Y, Shima Y, Krosshaug T, Yung PSH, Chan KM. Biomechanics of supination ankle sprain: a case report of an accidental injury event in the laboratory. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(4):822827. PubMed ID: 19188559 doi:

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Ricard MD, Sherwood SM, Schulthies SS, Knight KL. Effects of tape and exercise on dynamic ankle inversion. J Athl Train. 2000;35(1):3137. PubMed ID: 16558605

    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 630 630 90
Full Text Views 16 16 1
PDF Downloads 7 7 1