People with chronic ankle instability benefit from brace application in highly dynamic change of direction movements

Advances in Diagnosis and Management of Lateral Ankle Instability: A Review of Current Literature

Lateral ankle sprains and instability are an increasingly identified pain point for patients, accounting for 20 to 25% of musculoskeletal injuries. Lateral ankle injuries are especially concerning given the propensity for patients to develop chronic lateral ankle instability and for the high risk of reinjury on an unstable ankle. With the complex articulation of the tibiofibular syndesmosis, subtalar, and talocrural joints, pinpointing ankle dysfunction remains difficult. Multiple reviews have evaluated management and diagnosis of lateral ankle instability, but with newer treatment options available, a more comprehensive assessment of the current literature was conducted. Although multiple surgical options exist, many nonsurgical functional options have also been developed for patients that may help patients prevent the development of chronic lateral ankle instability. In recent times, many new options have come up, including in-office needle arthroscopy and continual advancements in diagnosis and our understanding of this difficult topic. Multiple reviews have evaluated the management and diagnosis of lateral ankle instability, but with newer treatment options available, a more comprehensive assessment of the current literature was conducted. Given this, this review will help to highlight new diagnostic and nonsurgical therapeutic options for the management of lateral ankle instability.

Chronic Ankle Instability - Mechanical vs. Functional

Chronic ankle instability arises from three interacting contributing factors: mechanical ankle instability, functional ankle instability, and perceived ankle instability. To decide on the most appropriate individual recommendation for therapeutic options, it is necessary to assess which of the two main aetiologies - functional vs. mechanical - is dominant in causing the perceived impairment. It is essential to perform a thorough analysis and diagnosis, even though quantifying mechanical ankle instability is still a challenge in the clinical approach to this common pathology. When diagnosing mechanical instability, the most established procedure is physical examination, although this unfortunately does not allow the deficit to be quantified. Additional options include stress-ultrasound, 3D stress-MRI (3SAM), ankle arthrometry, marker-based 3D motion analysis, and diagnostic ankle arthroscopy. Of these the latter is considered the gold standard, even though it is an invasive procedure, it may not be performed for diagnostic reasons only, and it also does not allow the mechanical instability to be quantified. For diagnosing functional instability there are non-instrumented tests such as the Star Excursion Balance Test or Y-Balance Test, posturography/stabilometry, and gait and running analysis, possibly combined with EMG acquisition and isokinetic strength testing.To date, the standard of care is conservative management of ankle instability, and the therapy should include sensorimotor training, strength training of the periarticular muscles, balance training, and gait and running exercises on different surfaces. However, it is increasingly clear that a certain degree of mechanical instability cannot be compensated for by functional training. Thus, it is the goal of differential diagnostics to identify those patients and guide them to mechanical therapy, including ankle bracing, taping, and surgical ligament reconstruction.

External Ankle Support and Ankle Biomechanics in Chronic Ankle Instability: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature to determine whether external ankle supports influence ankle biomechanics in participants with chronic ankle instability (CAI) during sport-related tasks.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases was conducted in November 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were randomized crossover or parallel-group controlled trials in which researchers assessed ankle biomechanics during landing, running, or change of direction in participants with CAI using external ankle supports compared with no support.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2) and quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to compare between-groups mean differences with 95% CIs. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation recommendations were used to determine the certainty of findings.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 13 studies of low to moderate risk of bias were included. During landing, very low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce frontal-plane excursion (mean difference [95% CI] = -1.83° [-2.97°, -0.69°], P = .002), plantar-flexion angle at initial contact (-3.86° [-6.18°, -1.54°], P = .001), and sagittal-plane excursion (-3.45° [-5.00°, -1.90°], P < .001) but not inversion angle at initial contact (-1.00° [-3.59°, 1.59°], P = .45). During running, very low- to low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce sagittal-plane excursion (-5.21° [-8.59°, -1.83°], P = .003) but not inversion angle at initial contact (0.32° [-2.11°, 1.47°], P = .73), frontal-plane excursion (-1.31° [-3.24°, 0.63°], P = .19), or plantar-flexion angle at initial contact (-0.12° [-3.54°, 3.29°], P = .94). Studies investigating changes of direction were insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Very low-grade evidence indicated external ankle supports reduce frontal-plane excursion but not inversion angle at initial contact in participants with CAI during landing. Limiting frontal-plane excursion may reduce ankle-sprain risk. Frontal-plane ankle kinematics were not influenced by external ankle supports during running. Sagittal-plane reductions were observed with external ankle supports during landing and running with low to very low certainty, but their influence on ankle-sprain risk is undetermined.

Effect of Braces on Performance in the Context of Chronic Ankle Instability

Ankle braces are commonly recommended for prevention of ankle sprains, especially secondary sprains, rehabilitation, and return to normal activity or sport after injury. One common resistance to use is the feeling that braces will impede functional performance. For people with chronic ankle instability, the limited research indicates that the use of semirigid, lace-up, or soft-shell braces will not affect, and in some cases, may enhance performance. Activities that could be enhanced are jumping, hopping, and dynamic balance.

Efficacy of a semirigid ankle brace in reducing mechanical ankle instability evaluated by 3D stress-MRI

Background

Novel imaging technologies like 3D stress-MRI of the ankle allow a quantification of the mechanical instability contributing to chronic ankle instability. In the present study, we have tested the efficacy of a semirigid ankle brace on joint congruency in a plantarflexion/supination position with and without load.

Methods

In this controlled observational study of n = 25 patients suffering from mechanical ankle instability, a custom-built ankle arthrometer implementing a novel 3D-stress MRI technique was used to evaluate the stabilizing effect of an ankle brace. Three parameters of joint congruency (i.e., 3D cartilage contact area fibulotalar, tibiotalar horizontal and tibiotalar vertical) were measured. The loss of cartilage contact area from neutral position to a position combined of 40° of plantarflexion and 30° of supination without and with axial load of 200 N was calculated. A semirigid ankle brace was applied in plantarflexion/supination to evaluate its effect on joint congruence. Furthermore, the perceived stability of the brace during a hopping task was analyzed using visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

The application of a semirigid brace led to an increase in cartilage contact area (CCA) when the foot was placed in plantarflexion and supination. This effect was visible for all three compartments of the upper ankle joint (P < 0.001; η² = 0.54). The effect of axial loading did not result in significant differences. The subjective stability provided by the brace (VAS 7.6/10) did not correlate to the magnitude of the improvement of the overall joint congruency.

Conclusions

The stabilizing effect of the semirigid ankle brace can be verified using 3D stress-MRI. Providing better joint congruency with an ankle brace may reduce peak loads at certain areas of the talus, which possibly cause osteochondral or degenerative lesions. However, the perceived stability provided by the brace does not seem to reflect into the mechanical effect of the brace.

Trial registration The study protocol was prospectively registered at the German Clinical Trials Register (#DRKS00016356).

Portable 3D Gait Analysis Assessment in MTT Treat Chronic Ankle Instability: A Retrospective Study

Purpose

Retrospective analysis of the effect of portable 3D gait analysis as an innovative evaluation method in the treatment with MTT on chronic ankle instability patient.

Methods

From January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, 56 cases of chronic ankle instability (CAI) were extracted from the medical record system of Shenzhen Longhua District Central Hospital. All the patients of 56 cases accepted the medical training therapy (MTT). As outcome parameters, the alterations of the Cumberland ankle instability tool (CAIT), foot and ankle ability measure (FAAM), were used before the treatment and after treatment; meanwhile, the portable apparatus 3D gait analysis was used to measure the gait parameters.

Conclusion

The results showed only ankle angle parameters Y-axis, maximum dorsiflexion during support period (°) had a significant difference, and the p value is 0.039. Meanwhile, the CAIT, FAAM, and most 3D gait analysis data had no significant difference. This particular statistical difference shows that CAI can be measured scientifically and objectively, although most measurement parameters have no change. These results make further reveal that the CAI patients are suffering with dynamic abnormality of ankle motion angle; this also provides us with a measurable and systematic evaluation reference plan for CAI treatment in the future.