Effects of Midfoot Joint Mobilization on Perceived Ankle–Foot Function in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Crossover Clinical Trial

3Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Context: To investigate the effects of midfoot joint mobilization and a 1-week home exercise program, compared with a sham intervention, and home exercise program on pain, patient-reported outcomes, ankle–foot joint mobility, and neuromotor function in young adults with chronic ankle instability. Design: Crossover clinical trial. Methods: Twenty participants with chronic ankle instability were instructed in a stretching, strengthening, and balance home exercise program and were randomized a priori to receive either midfoot joint mobilizations (forefoot supination, cuboid glide, and plantar first tarsometatarsal) or a sham laying of hands on the initial visit. Changes in foot morphology, joint mobility, strength, dynamic balance, and patient-reported outcomes assessing pain, physical, and psychological function were assessed pre to post treatment and 1 week following post treatment. Participants crossed over to receive the alternate treatment and were assessed pre to post treatment and 1 week following. Linear modeling was used to assess changes in outcomes. Results: Participants demonstrated significantly greater perceived improvement immediately following midfoot mobilization in the single assessment numeric evaluation (sham: 5.0% [10.2%]; mobilization: 43.9% [26.2%]; β: 6.8; P < .001; adj R2: .17; Hedge g: 2.09), and global rating of change (sham: −0.1 [1.1]; mobilization: 1.1 [3.0]; β: 1.8; P = .01; adj R2: .12; Hedge g: 0.54), and greater improved 1-week outcomes in rearfoot inversion mobility (sham: 4.4° [8.4°]; mobilization: −1.6° [6.1°]; β: −6.37; P = .01; adj R2: .19; Hedge g: 0.81), plantar flexion mobility (sham: 2.7° [6.4°]; mobilization: −1.7° [4.3°]; β: −4.36; P = .02; adj R2: .07; Hedge g: 0.80), and posteromedial dynamic balance (sham: 2.4% [5.9%]; mobilization: 6.0% [5.4%]; β: 3.88; P = .04; adj R2: .10; Hedge g: 0.59) compared to the sham intervention. Conclusion: Greater perceived improvement and physical signs were observed following midfoot joint mobilization.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jaffri, A., Fraser, J. J., Koldenhoven, R. M., & Hertel, J. (2022). Effects of Midfoot Joint Mobilization on Perceived Ankle–Foot Function in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Crossover Clinical Trial. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 31(8), 1031–1041. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2021-0462

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free