Abstract
Abstract
Background
Athletes engaged in sports dance frequently encounter the potential for ankle injuries and instability, factors that may contribute to diminished training efficacy, compromised athletic performance, prolonged recuperation, and heightened susceptibility to recurring injuries.
Objective
The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of an exercise intervention (comprising blood flow restriction training combined with low-load ankle muscle strength training and balance training) as well as instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) on the foot and ankle function, strength, and range of motion in sports dance athletes exhibiting ankle instability (CAI).
Methods
Thirty participants exhibiting ankle instability, restriction, or discomfort were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups: the Test group (comprising blood flow restriction training combined with IASTM, n = 15) and the traditional ankle strength training group (n = 15). The intervention spanned 4 weeks, with one session per week. Assessment of the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT), Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and ankle range of motion occurred at three time points: pre-intervention, immediately following the initial intervention, and after 4 weeks of intervention. Ankle strength testing was conducted solely before and after the intervention for comparative analysis.
Results
There were no significant variances in baseline characteristics between the two intervention groups. In terms of CAIT scores, both groups exhibited notably higher scores following the initial intervention and after 4 weeks of intervention compared to pre-intervention (P < 0.05). The Test group displayed higher CAIT scores than the control group, signifying a more pronounced enhancement in ankle stability among patients in the Test group. Concerning FAAM scores, both groups significantly enhanced ankle function in CAI patients (P < 0.05), with the Test group demonstrating notably higher FAAM-SPORT scores than the control group (P < 0.05), indicating superior restoration of athletic capability in the Test group. As for improvements in ankle range of motion, both groups demonstrated significant enhancements compared to pre-intervention (P < 0.05). The Test group exhibited significantly superior improvements in dorsiflexion, eversion, and inversion range of motion compared to the control group (P < 0.05), while the control group did not exhibit significant enhancements in plantarflexion and eversion range of motion (P > 0.05). Both groups displayed enhanced ankle strength in CAI patients following the intervention (P < 0.05), with the Test group manifesting notably higher dorsiflexion and inversion strength than the control group (P < 0.05).
Conclusion
Both blood flow restriction training combined with IASTM and traditional ankle strength and stability training have shown significant improvements in stability, function, strength, and range of motion in CAI patients. Furthermore, the Test group exhibits superior efficacy in ankle stability, daily functional movement, dorsiflexion, and eversion range of motion compared to the control group.
Clinical trial registration
9 February 2024, ClinicalTrials.gov, ID; NCT06251414.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC