PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of jathtrainLink to Publisher's site
 
J Athl Train. 1997 Apr-Jun; 32(2): 136–140.
PMCID: PMC1319816

A Comparison of Moleskin Tape, Linen Tape, and Lace-Up Brace on Joint Restriction and Movement Performance

Richard C. Metcalfe, MSEd
Richard C. Metcalfe is
Gretchen A. Schlabach, PhD, ATC
Gretchen A. Schlabach is Program Director of Sports Medicine/Athletic Training at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115.
Marilyn A. Looney, PED
Marilyn A. Looney is Associate Professor at Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115.

Abstract

Objective:

There are several types of ankle prophylactics available. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moleskin tape, linen tape, and a lace-up brace on motor performance and ankle/subtalar range of motion (ROM).

Design and Setting:

Performance was measured in centimeters and seconds for vertical jump and Southeast Missouri (SEMO) agility test, respectively, under four conditions: control/no support, tape (T), tape with moleskin stirrup reinforcement (TwMSR), and a lace-up brace (B). Motor tests were conducted on two separate days. On another day ankle/ subtalar ROM was measured before, during, and after 20 minutes of continuous exercise under the four conditions. All tests were conducted in the field house at Northem Illinois University.

Subjects:

Ten college females with no recent history of ankle injury volunteered to participate in the study.

Measurements:

Vertical jump was measured using a Vertec jump stand (centimeters), and the Southeast Missouri (SEMO) agility test was measured with a stopwatch (seconds) under the four conditions. Ankle/subtalar ROM was measured before, during, and after a 20-minute exercise protocol by a goniometer under the four conditions. The tape (T) application was a closed basketweave, the tape with moleskin stirrup reinforcement (TwMSR) consisted of a closed basketweave and a moleskin stirrup (7.62 cm, 3 inches), and the brace(B) was a Swede-O Universal (Swede-O, Inc, North Branch, MN).

Results:

Vertical jumps were significantly shorter for all three ankle prophylactics when compared with the control/no-support condition. Among the three prophylactics, the vertical jumps were the same. Slower performance times were recorded for all three prophylactics as compared with the control/no-support condition. There were no significant differences, however, among the three ankle prophylactics. In comparison with the control/no-support condition, the TwMSR application significantly restricted four of the four ROMs (plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, inversion, and eversion) during the 20-minute exercise protocol. The T application significantly restricted three of the four ROMS (all ROMs except plantar flexion), and the B application also significantly restricted three of the four ROMs (all ROMs except eversion) during the 20-minute exercise protocol in comparison with the control/no- support condition.

Conclusions:

There does not appear to be any benefit in choosing one prophylactic over the others if near optimal performance and adequate ankle/subtalar restriction is desired. Other factors, such as comfort, ease of application, and cost, should be considered.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.3M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Images in this article

Click on the image to see a larger version.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Garrick JG, Requa RK. Role of external support in the prevention of ankle sprains. Med Sci Sports. 1973 Fall;5(3):200–203. [PubMed]
  • Rovere GD, Clarke TJ, Yates CS, Burley K. Retrospective comparison of taping and ankle stabilizers in preventing ankle injuries. Am J Sports Med. 1988 May-Jun;16(3):228–233. [PubMed]
  • Firer P. Effectiveness of taping for the prevention of ankle ligament sprains. Br J Sports Med. 1990 Mar;24(1):47–50. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Greene TA, Hillman SK. Comparison of support provided by a semirigid orthosis and adhesive ankle taping before, during, and after exercise. Am J Sports Med. 1990 Sep-Oct;18(5):498–506. [PubMed]
  • Martin N, Harter RA. Comparison of inversion restraint provided by ankle prophylactic devices before and after exercise. J Athl Train. 1993 Winter;28(4):324–329. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Myburgh KH, Vaughan CL, Isaacs SK. The effects of ankle guards and taping on joint motion before, during, and after a squash match. Am J Sports Med. 1984 Nov-Dec;12(6):441–446. [PubMed]
  • Pope MH, Renstrom P, Donnermeyer D, Morgenstern S. A comparison of ankle taping methods. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1987 Apr;19(2):143–147. [PubMed]
  • Laughman RK, Carr TA, Chao EY, Youdas JW, Sim FH. Three-dimensional kinematics of the taped ankle before and after exercise. Am J Sports Med. 1980 Nov-Dec;8(6):425–431. [PubMed]
  • Miller EA, Hergenroeder AC. Prophylactic ankle bracing. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1990 Oct;37(5):1175–1185. [PubMed]
  • Beriau MR, Cox WB, Manning J. Effects of ankle braces upon agility course performance in high school athletes. J Athl Train. 1994 Sep;29(3):224–230. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Paris DL. The Effects of the Swede-O, New Cross, and McDavid Ankle Braces and Adhesive Ankle Taping on Speed, Balance, Agility, and Vertical Jump. J Athl Train. 1992;27(3):253–256. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Lindley TR, Kernozek TW. Taping and semirigid bracing may not affect ankle functional range of motion. J Athl Train. 1995 Jun;30(2):109–112. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Athletic Training are provided here courtesy of National Athletic Trainers Association