ABSTRACT
Inversion ankle injuries are among the most common injuries in sport (Bernier and Perrin, 1998). Ankle taping is used by sports participants in an attempt to reduce the incidence of ankle injury (Hamer et al., 1992). Whilst taping has been advocated for many years, the evidence-base for prophylactic ankle taping reducing injury occurrence is limited (Firer, 1990). The proposed efficacy of ankle taping in protecting the lateral ligament complex has been historically related to restriction of range of motion (ROM). It is evident, however, that most if not all of the ROM restriction is rapidly lost with dynamic exercise (Greene and Hillman, 1990; Callaghan, 1997; Cordova et al., 2000; Meana et al., 2008) although available evidence is not unanimous (Ricard et al., 2000). It has been proposed that mechanical restriction of movement may be less important than the proprioceptive and sensory input derived from the ability of taping to stimulate mechanoreceptors in the skin, muscle, tendons and joint for injury prevention (Firer, 1990). Previous research has suggested that taping promotes earlier muscle activation at the ankle joint when presented with rapid inversion movement (Wilkerson, 1991) although this paper also suggested taping could impede performance of athletic skills. Consequently there has been substantial but contradictory data as to whether taping restricts ROM, promotes proprioception and muscle activity or alters gross performance (Verbrugge, 1996; Pederson et al., 1997; Refshauge et al., 2000; Riemann et al., 2002; Arnold and Docherty, 2004 ).
