Search results for: T. J. Ellapen

Authors: Mariette Swanepoel, Terry Ellapen, Henriette Hammil, Juandre Williams, Timothy Qumbu

Abstract:

The biomechanical consequence of pes planus is a topic seldom reviewed in regards to energy expenditure and predisposition to injury. However its comprehension in the field of foot rehabilitation, pre-and post-surgery is fundamental to successful patient management. This short communication unites the present literature to provide the reader with better insight on the consequence of pes planus, foot mechanics and its predisposition to injury at the foot and tibiofemoral joint. Further, the consideration of synergistic dominance of the foot invertors to compensate for the ineffective torque production of the fibularis longus due pes planus is presented.

Keywords: pes planus, fibularis longus, synergistic dominance, injury

Procedia PDF Downloads 257

Authors: T. J. Ellapen, N. Acampora, S. Dawson, J. Arling, C. Van Niekerk, H. J. Van Heerden

Abstract:

Objectives: To determine the comparative proprioceptive performance of injured versus non-injured adolescent female hockey players when wearing an ankle brace. Methods: Data were collected from 100 high school players who belonged to the Highway Secondary School KZN Hockey league via voluntary parental informed consent and player assent. Players completed an injury questionnaire probing the prevalence and nature of hockey injuries (March-August 2013). Subsequently players completed a Biodex proprioceptive test with and without an ankle brace. Probability was set at p≤ 0.05. Results: Twenty-two players sustained ankle injuries within the six months (p<0.001). Injured players performed similarly without bracing Right Anterior Posterior Index (RAPI): 2.8±0.9; Right Medial Lateral Index (RMLI): 1.9±0.7; Left Anterior Posterior Index (LAPI) LAPI: 2.7; Left Medial Lateral Index (LMLI): 1.7±0.6) as compared to bracing (RAPI: 2.7±1.4; RMLI: 1.8±0.6; LAPI: 2.6±1.0; LMLI: 1.5±0.6) (p>0.05). However, bracing (RAPI: 2.2±0.8; RMLI: 1.5±0.5; LAPI: 2.4±0.9; MLI: 1.5±0.5) improved the ankle stability of the non-injured group as compared to their unbraced performance (RAPI: 2.5±1.0; RMLI: 1.8±0.8; LAPI: 2.8±1.1; LMLI: 1.8±0.6) (p<0.05). Conclusion: Ankle bracing did not enhance the stability of injured ankles. However ankle bracing has an ergogenic effect enhancing the stability of healthy ankles.

Keywords: hockey, proprioception, ankle, bracing

Procedia PDF Downloads 320