Immediate effect of kinesiology tape on ankle stability

Key points

1. 01Kinesiology tape produced no significant change in peak activity, average activity, or reaction time (latency) of the peroneus longus or tibialis anterior during a sudden ankle inversion.
2. 02Wearing shoes significantly increased peroneus longus and tibialis anterior activity and lengthened the peroneus longus reaction time, patterns associated with a less stable ankle.
3. 03Tape was unable to offset or reverse the unfavourable changes that shoes caused.
4. 04This was a lab study in healthy ankles using muscle-activity measurements, not actual sprain rates, so it tests the proposed mechanism rather than real-world injury prevention.

How it was conducted

Design

Within-subject laboratory experiment; each participant served as their own control across four randomly ordered conditions

Participants

27 healthy adults (16 male, 11 female), mean age 21.1 years, with no recent lower-limb injury

Conditions

Barefoot, shoes, tape barefoot, and tape with shoes, tested during sudden 20 degree ankle inversions on a tilting platform at 100 degrees per second

Outcomes

Surface EMG of the dominant-leg peroneus longus and tibialis anterior: peak activity, average activity, and muscle latency

What they found

• Peroneus longus peak activity: barefoot 247 (SE 19.1) uV vs shoe 367 (SE 21.6) uV, p=0.000, and tape and shoe 337 (SE 19.0) uV, p=0.000.
• Peroneus longus average activity: barefoot 70.0 (SE 5.89) uV vs shoe 109 (SE 7.27) uV, p=0.000, and tape and shoe 109 (SE 6.83) uV, p=0.000.
• Peroneus longus latency: barefoot 183 (SE 8.59) ms vs shoe 205 (SE 6.53) ms, p=0.026; tape and shoe 197 (SE 6.16) ms was not significant, p=0.082.
• Tibialis anterior peak activity: barefoot 125 (SE 14.8) uV vs shoe 167 (SE 15.8) uV, p=0.010, and tape and shoe 163 (SE 15.8) uV, p=0.027.
• Tibialis anterior average activity: barefoot 31.5 (SE 4.41) uV vs shoe 39.9 (SE 3.64) uV, p=0.012; tape and shoe 37.5 (SE 2.81) uV was not significant, p=0.069.
• No tape versus barefoot comparison reached significance; the closest was peroneus longus average activity at p=0.059. Tibialis anterior latency showed no significant difference between any conditions.

Limitations

• Only healthy ankles were tested, yet the literature suggests the largest benefits from such interventions appear in people with unstable ankles.
• Outcomes were EMG muscle responses, a surrogate for stability, rather than actual ankle sprain rates or clinical outcomes.
• The sample was small (27 young adults) and measured a single immediate-effect session, limiting how far the findings generalise.
• One specific brand and manufacturer-recommended taping technique was used, so results may not apply to other tapes or application methods.

Why it matters

For patients

If you use kinesiology tape hoping it will stabilise your ankle or prevent sprains, this study suggests it is unlikely to do so in a healthy ankle.

For clinicians

Kinesiology tape did not improve protective peroneal or tibialis anterior responses in healthy ankles, so it should not be relied on as a mechanical or proprioceptive ankle-stabilising intervention based on this evidence.

For readers

Marketing claims that kinesiology tape corrects ligament damage and improves ankle stability were not supported by objective muscle-activity measurements in this study.