4.2 Article

Immediate effect of the use of toe separators on dynamic balance and ankle range of motion: a pilot study

期刊

PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00913847.2023.2278190

关键词

Foot orthoses; Physical examination; postural balance; proprioception; range of motion; Toes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the immediate effects of toe separators on ankle stability and range of motion in healthy young individuals. The results showed that using toe separators did not have an immediate effect on ankle range of motion and dynamic balance in healthy individuals. Future research should consider longer intervention programs and different populations.
Background and Objectives Injuries involving ankle stability and range of motion are among the most frequent in athletes and in the general population. In response, this study aimed to assess the immediate effects of toe separators on dynamic stability and ankle range of motion in healthy young individuals.Methods Among the 68 eligible participants, 50 healthy and active subjects completed all trials. The impact of the intervention was evaluated using the Weight Bearing Lunge Test and Y-Test. The control condition performed the tests without toe separators, while the experimental condition performed the tests with toe separators. All participants performed both conditions with a wash-out period of at least 7 days between trials.Results Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in dynamic balance (p > 0.05) and range of motion (p > 0.05) between the two conditions. Additionally, no asymmetries were detected between the lower limbs in both tests (p > 0.05).Conclusions The results of this pilot study indicate that using toe separators does not have an immediate effect on ankle range of motion and dynamic balance in young, healthy individuals. Future research should consider evaluating intervention programs of longer duration and exploring different populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据