The Effect of Different Prophylactic Ankle Taping on Knee Biomechanics During Landing Tasks in Healthy Individuals: A Cross‐Sectional Observational Design

ABSTRACT

Background and Purpose

The ability to perform jumping and landing maneuvers effectively is important for athletic performance and injury prevention. The aim of this study was to compare the immediate effects of dynamic taping (DT) and Kinesio taping (KT) applied to the ankle on knee biomechanics during a single‐leg countermovement jump (SL‐CMJ) in healthy individuals.

Methods

Eighteen healthy individuals (8 males, 10 females) performed the SL‐CMJ under three randomized conditions: no taping, DT, and KT. Each condition was tested on separate days. Two‐dimensional video‐based motion analysis was used to assess peak knee valgus angle (^o), jump height (cm), flight time (s), and ground contact time (s) during the SL‐CMJ.

Results

Both DT and KT significantly increased peak knee valgus angle and significantly reduced jump height, flight time, and ground contact time compared with the no‐taping condition (all p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed between DT and KT for any of the measured outcomes (all p > 0.05).

Discussion

Both DT and KT altered landing biomechanics during the SL‐CMJ in healthy individuals by increasing the peak knee valgus angle and reducing jump performance variables. However, no differences were observed between DT and KT, indicating that their different mechanical properties did not result in different effects on the measured outcomes. Because only healthy individuals were evaluated and only the immediate effects of taping were investigated, further studies are needed to determine the clinical relevance of these biomechanical changes.

1. Introduction

Ankle sprains are among the most common injuries in athletes and affect individuals of all ages participating in a wide variety of sports (Kaminski et al. 2013). Prophylactic ankle taping is one of the most commonly used strategies for the prevention and management of these injuries. By limiting excessive motion at the tibiotalar and subtalar joints, taping techniques aim to enhance ankle stability during dynamic activities. Previous studies have demonstrated that rigid taping and ankle braces can protect the lateral ankle ligaments by restricting excessive inversion during high‐demand activities such as jumping, landing, and cutting maneuvers (Kemler et al. 2015; Wilkerson et al. 2005).

The primary purpose of ankle taping is to reduce excessive frontal‐plane motion, particularly ankle inversion. Hall et al. (2016) demonstrated that ankle inversion was significantly reduced under taped conditions compared with non‐taped conditions (Hall et al. 2016). However, increasing evidence suggests that restricting ankle motion may not only influence local joint mechanics but may also alter movement patterns at proximal joints through changes in lower‐extremity kinematics (Romero‐Morales et al. 2023; S. A. Williams et al. 2018). For example, Klem et al. (2017) reported that female basketball players wearing an ankle brace exhibited greater knee internal rotation and knee abduction during cutting maneuvers than under non‐braced conditions. Likewise, Romero‐Morales et al. (2023) found that rigid ankle taping increased knee valgus during the landing phase of drop jumps and single‐leg countermovement jumps (SL‐CMJ), likely as a consequence of restricted ankle range of motion. Because excessive knee valgus is considered an important biomechanical risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, understanding how different ankle taping techniques influence proximal joint biomechanics has important clinical implications (Hewett et al. 2005; Romero‐Morales et al. 2023).

Among elastic taping techniques, Kinesio tape (KT) and dynamic tape (DT) differ substantially in their mechanical properties and the proposed mechanisms of action. KT is primarily believed to facilitate proprioceptive feedback through cutaneous stimulation while providing minimal mechanical restraint to joint motion (S. Williams et al. 2012). Consequently, its effects are generally attributed to neurosensory mechanisms rather than substantial alterations in movement mechanics. In contrast, DT is a viscoelastic tape specifically designed to provide greater elastic resistance and recoil. By absorbing, storing, and releasing elastic energy during movement, DT may decelerate excessive joint motion, reduce muscular workload, and provide greater mechanical assistance than KT (McNeill and Pedersen 2016; Kim and Lee 2023).

Several studies support the potential biomechanical effects of DT on lower‐extremity movement. Bittencourt et al. (2017) reported that spiral application of DT reduced the frontal plane projection angle during the single‐leg squats in athletes. Similarly, Robinson et al. (2019) demonstrated that spiral DT application in individuals with greater trochanteric pain syndrome reduced both hip adduction angle and hip adduction moment during walking. These findings suggest that DT may influence movement patterns beyond the site of application through its mechanical properties. However, despite the increasing clinical use of both KT and DT, direct comparisons of their effects on proximal lower‐extremity biomechanics remain scarce. Most previous studies have focused either on rigid taping or on the local effects of elastic taping at the ankle (S. A. Williams et al. 2018; Romero‐Morales et al. 2023; Kim and Lee 2023), leaving it unclear whether the distinct mechanical characteristics of KT and DT result in different biomechanical adaptations during dynamic landing tasks.

Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the effects of ankle‐applied DT and KT on knee biomechanics during landing following a SL‐CMJ. It was hypothesized that both taping techniques would modify knee biomechanics compared with the no‐taping condition by influencing ankle motion. Given their distinct mechanical characteristics, it was further hypothesized that DT and KT might produce different biomechanical adaptations during landing.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This cross‐sectional, descriptive, and single‐blind study was conducted between December 2024 and January 2025 at the Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Laboratory. The study was approved by the Health Sciences Ethics Committee of Mugla Sitki Kocman University (Date: 11.12.2024; Approval Code: 155). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation.

An a priori sample size calculation was performed using G*Power version 3.1 (Heinrich‐Heine University Düsseldorf, Germany). As no previous studies had evaluated the effects of DT and KT on knee biomechanics during a SL‐CMJ, the sample size estimation followed the approach reported in our previous randomized crossover study using a similar intervention protocol (Koç et al. 2024). Using an alpha level of 0.05 and a statistical power of 95%, a minimum sample size of 12 participants was considered sufficient. Therefore, 18 participants were recruited.

The inclusion criteria were being between 18 and 25 years of age, regularly engaging in daily physical activities (excluding professional athletes and sedentary individuals), and having a Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool score of 28 or higher, indicating the absence of functional ankle instability (Hiller et al. 2006).

The exclusion criteria included a history of lower extremity trauma within the previous 6 months, vestibular disorders or headaches affecting balance, any neurological condition, and allergic reactions to the patches. To screen for possible allergic reactions, the patches were applied to the ankle, and the skin was monitored for redness or itching after 30 min.

2.2. Study Procedure

Each participant was randomly assigned to receive the interventions using a closed‐envelope randomization method. The intervention consisted of three conditions: No Taping (NT), Dynamic Taping (DT), and Kinesio Taping (KT), with each condition administered at a 1‐day interval. The SL‐CMJ test was performed to assess jump performance and knee kinematics.

Previous studies have generally investigated the immediate effects of ankle taping by performing assessments immediately after tape application (P. Li et al. 2022; R. Li et al. 2023; Y. Li et al. 2024). In the present study, biomechanical testing was performed after a standardized 2‐h period of tape application to ensure a consistent duration of tape exposure across all participants. This protocol was also consistent with our previous investigation evaluating the acute effects of ankle taping following a 2‐h application period (Koç et al. 2024).

All assessments were conducted by the same researcher, who was blinded to the taping conditions. Blinding was maintained by asking participants to wear long socks that fully covered the taped area. All taping procedures were performed by the same researcher to ensure consistency.

2.3. Single Leg‐Countermovement Jump Task (SL‐CMJ)

The SL‐CMJ is a simple and useful assessment tool, particularly for evaluating mechanisms related to non‐contact ACL injuries. Several studies have investigated landing kinematics during the SL‐CMJ task (Hewett et al. 2005; Memain et al. 2024). Before the SL‐CMJ, all participants performed three practice trials to familiarize themselves with the task. The test was performed using the participants' dominant leg, which was determined by asking which leg they would use to kick a ball.

Three trials were performed, with a 30 s rest interval between trials to minimize fatigue. Consistent with O’Malley et al. (2018), only the trial with the highest jump height was included in the analysis because the primary objective was to evaluate maximal performance during the SL‐CMJ under each experimental condition (O’Malley et al. 2018).

2.4. Kinesio Taping Application

The KT technique was applied to provide functional correction for lateral ankle sprain (Figure 1). Prior to application, the skin was cleaned with alcohol to improve tape adhesion. The participant was positioned in a supine position with the ankle placed in slight dorsiflexion and eversion.

FIGURE 1.

Application of Kinesio tape.

Two I‐shaped strips of KT were used. The first strip was applied for functional correction. The base of the tape was anchored without tension near the insertion area on the dorsum of the foot. The tape was then applied from insertion to origin with approximately 50% tension, following the lateral aspect of the ankle in order to facilitate dorsiflexion and eversion of the ankle joint. The final 2–3 cm of the tape was applied without tension to avoid skin irritation. The second strip was applied to support the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL), which is commonly injured during lateral ankle sprains. This strip was applied with approximately 75%–100% tension. The tape started under the heel and passed inferior to the lateral malleolus. It was then directed around the posterior aspect of the calcaneus and continued under the heel again before passing over the lateral malleolus. The tape was finally anchored on the lateral aspect of the ankle without tension to complete the application (Slevin et al. 2020).

2.5. Dynamic Taping Application

The DT technique was applied using customized strips of dynamic tape with different lengths according to the anthropometric characteristics of each participant (Figure 2). Before application, the skin surface was cleaned to enhance adhesion. Participants were positioned in a seated position while the ankle was placed in plantarflexion and eversion to simulate the position associated with lateral ankle sprain mechanisms. The dynamic tape was applied without pre‐tension at the initial anchor point.

FIGURE 2.

Application of dynamic tape.

The tape was first anchored at the head of the first metatarsal. From this point, the tape was extended posteriorly along the medial longitudinal arch of the foot toward the calcaneus. The strip was then directed to the posterior aspect of the heel and wrapped around the medial side of the calcaneus to provide mechanical assistance during ankle motion. After passing around the heel, the tape was continued toward the lateral aspect of the foot and ankle, providing support to the lateral ankle structures. The final anchoring point of the tape was placed approximately at the proximal one‐third of the medial tibial region. The final section of the tape was applied without tension to prevent skin irritation and ensure comfortable fixation (Lim and Park 2020).

2.6. Kinematic Analysis

Dynamic knee kinematic assessments were conducted according to the procedures described by Romero‐Morales et al. (2023). An iPhone 14 equipped with an 18 mm lens was positioned 2 m from the assessment area, and no zoom was applied in order to standardize the procedure across all participants. Video recordings were analyzed using Kinovea, a free motion analysis software (Romero‐Morales et al. 2023). A previous study has demonstrated excellent reliability of Kinovea measurements, reporting perfect agreement between observers for flight time and jump height measurements (ICC = 1, p < 0.0001) (Balsalobre‐Fernández et al. 2014). The peak knee valgus angle was calculated using two lines: one line drawn from the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) to the center of the patella, and a second line drawn from the center of the patella to the center of the ankle (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3.

Measurement of peak knee valgus angle using two‐dimensional kinematic analysis.

Flight time and ground contact time were determined from the first frames of the foot being completely off the ground (take‐off phase) and when the foot recontacted the ground (landing phase). Jump height was then calculated using the formula provided in (Bosco et al. 1983).

$$\text{Jump}\text{Height}=\left[\mathrm{g}\times \left(\text{Flight}{\text{Time}}^2\right)\right]/8.$$

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using JAMOVI version 2.3 statistical software (Version 2.3; The jamovi project 2022). Descriptive statistics were presented as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables, while categorical variables were reported as frequencies (n) and percentages (%). For each condition, the highest jump trial obtained from the video analysis was used for statistical analysis. The normality of the data distribution was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test and by visual inspection of histograms and Q–Q plots. As the data did not meet the assumption of normality, non‐parametric tests were applied. Differences between taping conditions were analyzed using the Friedman test for repeated measures. When significant differences were detected, post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test with Bonferroni correction. Effect sizes for the Friedman test were calculated using Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W). Values of 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 were interpreted as small, moderate, and large effects, respectively, based on commonly used conventions for correlation‐based effect sizes (Cohen 1992; Tomczak and Tomczak 2014).

3. Results

Eighteen participants (8 male, 10 female) participated in the study. The dominant leg of 17 participants was right while one participant's dominant leg was left (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Demographic characteristics of the participants.

n = 18 (8 male, 10 female)	Mean ± SD	95% CI
Age (years)	21.1 ± 1.92	20.1–22.0
Height (m)	1.68 ± 0.10	1.62–1.73
Weight (kg)	60.7 ± 15.8	55.8–71.5
Body mass index (kg/m2)	22.5 ± 4.39	20.3–24.7
Dominant leg (n)	Right 17; left 1

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation.

Significant differences were observed among the three conditions (DT, KT, and no taping) for peak knee valgus angle (p = 0.007, Kendall's W = 0.276). Post hoc comparisons revealed significantly greater peak knee valgus angle in both the DT (p = 0.01) and KT (p = 0.002) conditions compared with the no taping condition, while no significant difference was found between DT and KT (p = 0.50).

Significant differences were also found for jump height (p = 0.009, Kendall's W = 0.261). Post hoc analyses showed that jump height was significantly lower in both the DT (p = 0.002) and KT (p = 0.02) conditions compared with the no taping condition, with no significant difference between DT and KT (p = 0.27).

Similarly, flight time differed significantly among conditions (p = 0.009, Kendall's W = 0.261). Post hoc comparisons indicated that both DT (p = 0.002) and KT (p = 0.02) resulted in shorter flight times compared with the no taping condition, while the difference between DT and KT was not significant (p = 0.27).

For ground contact time, a significant difference was observed among conditions (p = 0.002, Kendall's W = 0.339). Post hoc analysis demonstrated that ground contact time was significantly shorter in both the DT (p < 0.001) and KT (p = 0.001) conditions compared with the no taping condition, with no significant difference between DT and KT (p = 0.84) (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Comparison of SL‐CMJ outcome measures among the no‐taping, dynamic taping, and Kinesio taping conditions.

	Dynamic taping	Kinesio taping	No taping	p/effect size (Kendall's W)
Peak knee valgus angle (°)	10.14 ± 7.31	10.9 ± 7.73	6.99 ± 7.17	0.007 a /0.276 (DT‐KT = 0.50; DT‐NT = 0.01; KT‐NT = 0.002)
Jump height (cm)	0.06 ± 0.04	0.08 ± 0.07	0.09 ± 0.05	0.009 a /0.261 (DT‐KT = 0.27; DT‐NT = 0.002; KT‐NT = 0.02)
Flight time (s)	0.22 ± 0.07	0.25 ± 0.08	0.26 ± 0.07	0.009 a /0.261 (DT‐KT = 0.27; DT‐NT = 0.002; KT‐NT = 0.02)
Ground contact time (s)	0.55 ± 0.20	0.60 ± 0.22	0.94 ± 0.55	0.002 a /0.339 (DT‐KT = 0.84; DT‐NT = < 0.001; KT‐NT = 0.001)

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant overall p‐values (p < 0.05); corresponding Kendall's W effect sizes are also presented in bold.

Abbreviation: DT, Dynamic taping; KT, Kinesio taping; NT, no‐taping; SL‐CMJ, the single‐leg countermovement jump.

^a The Friedman test was used for statistical tests. Kendall's W values: < 0.10 = small, 0.10–0.30 = medium, ≥ 0.30 = large.

4. Discussion

The present study investigated the immediate effects of ankle‐applied DT and KT on knee biomechanics and jump performance during the SL‐CMJ task in healthy individuals. The findings demonstrated that both taping techniques resulted in significant increases in peak knee valgus angle and significant reductions in jump height, flight time, and ground contact time compared with the non‐taping condition. However, no significant differences were observed between DT and KT for any of the measured outcomes.

A recent meta‐analysis demonstrated that ankle taping significantly limits plantarflexion angle at initial contact during drop landings; however, evidence regarding its effects during other functional tasks remains limited (Megalaa et al. 2022). Consistent with the present findings, previous studies have also reported alterations in frontal‐plane knee biomechanics following ankle taping or bracing during dynamic functional tasks (Klem et al. 2017; S. A. Williams et al. 2018). Increased knee valgus during landing has been identified as an important biomechanical risk factor for ACL injury because it may increase ACL loading, particularly when combined with internal tibial rotation (Kiapour et al. 2015). Therefore, the observed increase in peak knee valgus angle following both DT and KT applications suggests that ankle taping may influence landing biomechanics beyond the ankle joint.

Several studies have investigated the effects of prophylactic ankle taping or KT on lower‐extremity biomechanics (Liu et al. 2024; García‐Arrabé et al. 2025; S. A. Williams et al. 2018). However, to our knowledge, no previous study has examined the effects of DT on knee biomechanics during landing. DT differs mechanically from KT because it possesses multidirectional elasticity, high elastic recoil capacity, and does not contain rigid anchor points. These mechanical characteristics have been proposed to influence movement differently from KT by storing and releasing elastic energy during movement rather than acting primarily as a mechanical restraint. Nevertheless, despite these theoretical differences, the present study demonstrated that DT and KT produced comparable effects on peak knee valgus angle during landing. These findings suggest that the distinct mechanical characteristics of DT did not result in measurable differences in the knee biomechanical variables assessed in this study. Further investigations incorporating comprehensive biomechanical analyses are required to better understand whether the unique mechanical properties of DT influence lower‐extremity movement differently from KT.

Both taping techniques also resulted in significant reductions in jump height and flight time during the SL‐CMJ task. A reduction in jump height may be considered undesirable in sports requiring maximal jumping performance. Similar effects observed with DT and KT suggest that ankle taping may influence jump performance irrespective of the taping material. Previous research has reported that ankle taping can alter lower‐extremity biomechanics during dynamic tasks, including changes in ground reaction forces and the timing of peak impact forces during landing (Riemann et al. 2002). However, because the previous study did not evaluate jump height or flight time, direct comparisons with the present findings should be made with caution. In addition, both taping techniques significantly reduced ground contact time compared with the non‐taping condition. This finding differs from previous reports of altered landing biomechanics following ankle taping (Romero‐Morales et al. 2023), whereas Korkusuz et al. (2022) reported no significant differences in ankle kinematics among kinesiology taping, rigid taping, and no‐taping conditions . These discrepancies may be explained by differences in taping technique, application tension, participant characteristics, and the functional task evaluated. However, because hip and ankle kinematics, muscle activation, and ground reaction forces were not measured in the present study, the biomechanical mechanisms responsible for the shorter ground contact time cannot be determined. Future studies incorporating comprehensive kinetic and kinematic analyses are warranted to clarify these mechanisms.

This study has several limitations. First, participants did not perform the SL‐CMJ task barefoot. Barefoot testing may allow a more accurate evaluation of the effects of taping. Second, participants performed the SL‐CMJ task with free arm movements. However, the effects of free versus restricted arm use on jump performance and lower‐extremity biomechanics have not yet been fully clarified in the literature. Third, only peak knee valgus angle and jump performance variables were evaluated. Hip and ankle kinematics, kinetics, muscle activation, and ground reaction forces were not assessed; therefore, the biomechanical mechanisms underlying the observed changes cannot be determined. Future studies evaluating the entire lower‐extremity kinetic chain using comprehensive three‐dimensional biomechanical analyses may provide a better understanding of the biomechanical effects of ankle taping.

4.1. Implications for Physiotherapy Practice

In conclusion, the findings of the present study suggest that prophylactic ankle taping alters landing biomechanics in healthy individuals. Both DT and KT increased the peak knee valgus angle and reduced jump height, flight time, and ground contact time compared with the non‐taping condition. However, no significant differences were observed between DT and KT across all measured outcomes. As increased knee valgus during landing has been associated with greater ACL loading in previous biomechanical studies, these findings indicate that prophylactic ankle taping may influence landing mechanics in a potentially unfavorable manner with respect to knee valgus. Because this study included only healthy individuals and evaluated only the immediate effects of taping, these findings should not be generalized to injured populations or interpreted as evidence that ankle taping increases injury risk. Further research is required to determine the clinical relevance of these biomechanical changes in athletic and injured populations.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

The study was approved by the Health Sciences Ethics Committee of Mugla Sitki Kocman University (Date: 11.12.2024; Approval Code: 155).

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not publicly available due to privacy and Ethical restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.