
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

34386293
25544
10.26603/001c.25544
Original Research
Serial Within-Session Improvements in Ankle Dorsiflexion During Clinical Interventions Including Mobilization-With-Movement and A Novel Manipulation Intervention – A Case Series
Abassi Mohsen 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1452-6228
Whiteley Rod 1
1 Aspetar Sports Medicine Hospital, Doha, QATAR
Corresponding author: Rod Whiteley Aspetar Sports Medicine Hospital, Post Office Box 29222 Doha, QATAR Rodney.whiteley@aspetar.com +974 6699 4924
1 8 2021
2021
16 4 11581168
25 11 2020
20 5 2021
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. If you remix, transform, or build upon this work, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

Background

Persisting reductions in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion are commonly encountered clinically and seen to be associated with adverse outcomes after ankle and other lower extremity injuries. Accordingly improving identified deficits is a common goal for rehabilitation; however, little data exists documenting any improvement related to interventions in these patients.

Purpose

To document the change in dorsiflexion range of motion after stretching and mobilization-with-movement and exercise and a novel manipulation intervention in a population of injured athletes.

Design

Case series in 38 consecutive injured athletes with persisting reductions in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion (42 “stiff” ankles, 34 uninjured) in an outpatient sports physiotherapy clinic.

Method

During a single treatment session, two baseline measurements of weight-bearing dorsiflexion were taken at the start of the session to establish reliability and minimum detectable change, and then the same measures were performed after stretching and a mobilization-with-movement intervention, and again after clinical exercise and a novel manipulation which was applied on both ankles.

Results

Excellent reliability was demonstrated (ICC2,1>0.93, MDC=3.5°) for the dorsiflexion measure. Statistically significant (p<0.01), but clinically meaningless improvements were seen after stretching and the mobilization-with-movement intervention on the injured and uninjured legs (1.9° and 1.4° respectively) with greater improvements seen after exercise and the subsequent manipulation (6.9° and 4.7°).

Conclusions

The relatively simple clinical exercise and manipulation intervention program was associated improvement in dorsiflexion range of motion in this cohort with persisting ankle stiffness. The interventions described largely restored range of motion consistent with baseline levels of the uninjured ankles. Improvements were also seen in the uninjured ankles following intervention.

dorsiflexion
stiffness
manipulation
mobilisation-with-movement
manual therapy
ankle
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Despite recent international consortium1 and clinical practice guideline2 recommendations that ankle dorsiflexion range of motion be targeted during rehabilitation after ankle injury, evidence to guide the clinician regarding the effects of specific interventions remains unclear.3,4 Dorsiflexion range of motion limitation has been identified as a prospective risk factor for a number of lower-limb injuries including ankle injury,5,6 Achilles tendinopathy,7 patellofemoral pain,8 plantar fasciopathy,9 and hamstring injury.10 Additionally, limited ankle dorsiflexion range of motion is associated with impaired dynamic balance11 and increased chronicity1 and recurrence12 in those recovered from lateral ankle sprain. Those with chronic lateral ankle instability display lower dorsiflexion range of motion during gait13,14 as well as drop jumps,15 and presumed compensatory movements in other parts of the kinetic chain.15–18 During rehabilitation from ankle injury, restoration of this range of motion is often identified as an important treatment goal to address impairment.11,19–22

Weight-bearing dorsiflexion range of motion is typically measured as a “knee to wall” distance, or as an angle of inclination of the tibia.23 Previously we have documented normal dorsiflexion range of motion as approximately 35° in an athletic population24 using this measure. Many physiotherapy interventions have been described to improve ankle dorsiflexion range of motion including electrotherapy, ice application, relaxation and imagery programs, passive mobilization, psychological interventions, stretching, and mobilization with movement techniques.4 Manual therapy interventions (joint mobilization, mobilization with movement, and high velocity low amplitude techniques) used on patients with reduced dorsiflexion after ankle injury have shown short-term improvements of 6 to 22mm25–30 and 3.0° to 5.5°31 depending on the intervention and measurement method employed. Stretching interventions have shown short-term improvements in range of 2° to 5.3°32,33 depending on the technique and duration with larger effects seen for two- to six-week home programs.3

Research in this area typically examines single interventions in a pre- post- treatment design considering only the immediate effects of intervention. Multiple applications of joint mobilizations appear to show no further benefit beyond the second application34 although this research is sparse35especially in professional athletes. Clinically, therapists will often employ a number of interventions on any single patient during a single session. It is not known if the addition of further interventions provides greater improvement in range of motion, and it is unusual to have any published information regarding anything other than the immediate effects of such interventions. It is possible that some improvement in range of motion is simply due to either test-retest variability independent of any real gain in flexibility, or test-retest improvement.36 Clinically, therapists will often aim to improve range of motion and then capitalize on this by performing other exercises in this newly acquired range of motion in an effort to provide a more lasting benefit. It is not known if these gains persist throughout the duration of any clinical encounter.

Accordingly, the purpose of this case series was to document the change in dorsiflexion range of motion after stretching and mobilization-with-movement and exercise and a novel manipulation intervention in a population of injured athletes. It was hypothesized that each of the interventions would be associated with an increase in dorsiflexion range of motion.

Methods

Patients attending an outpatient sports physiotherapy clinic were targeted for inclusion after clinical identification of a relative reduction (compared to the uninjured side) in dorsiflexion range of motion along with one of several features during rehabilitation which suggested the athlete required more ankle joint dorsiflexion to reestablish normal movement under load. These features included observation of excessive pronation on the injured side during a bilateral squat, weight-shift toward the uninjured leg during a heavy squat, off-loading of the injured leg during bilateral jump-landing, reduced distance toward the posterior targets during star excursion balance testing on the injured leg. Four broad categories of patients were examined who had a reduction of ankle dorsiflexion identified as a therapeutic limitation. The first group were athletes at end-phase rehabilitation following knee injury with painless difficulty achieving full range during full squats or unable to land properly from a jump (6 patients with 7 stiff ankles). The second through fourth groups were all pain-free patients being treated for foot (second group), ankle (third group), or posterior lower leg (fourth group) injuries with similarly interfering ankle stiffness whose rehabilitation had persisted for more than 6 weeks (32 patients with 35 “stiff” ankles, Figure 1).

64906 Figure 1. Flowchart of inclusion, intervention, and measurements.

Contraindications for inclusion were medical diagnosis of acute anterior or posterior impingement, imaging-identified cartilage damage, or history of cartilage repair in either the tibiotalar or subtalar joints. Additionally, any patient from either group complaining of an ankle pain during active dorsiflexion, plantarflexion, one leg squat, one leg jump, or one leg hop were excluded.

Pilot investigation suggested that an improvement of approximately 5° (0.5° SD) was possible for this intervention. Thirty-three subjects would give a power of 0.8 to detect such an effect with a Type I error rate of 0.05, therefore we planned to enroll 36 subjects (allowing for data loss). Ultimately 38 consecutive patients met the inclusion criteria in this pragmatic clinical outcome trial. The study was conducted in accordance to the STROBE guidelines for cohort studies,37 informed consent was sought and obtained for the use of these clinical data from the patients, and the study was approved by the local ethics committee (application number: E202009010).

Inter-rater reliability and baseline measurement

The baseline dorsiflexion range of motion was measured before any treatment or exercise was given at the beginning of the session. The patient started in a lunging position facing a wall, “knee over middle toe” where the pelvis remains parallel to the wall (figure 1). An initial familiarization of two lunges to the limit of dorsiflexion were performed. Subjects were instructed and manually guided, if required, to maintain neutral tibial rotation during these lunges. Two physiotherapists who were blinded to the intervention, injured side(s), and to each other’s measurements recorded the subsequent clinical measurement on each ankle. For the measurement, an inclinometer (Magnetic Polycast Protractor, Empire, USA) was placed 4 fingers width proximal to the ankle joint line on the tibia avoiding the antero-lateral muscular compartment (Figure 2). Two baseline measurements were taken to determine within session inter-rater reliability, with the subject walking approximately 200m between these tests on an indoor track (Figure 2). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using ICC(2,1) (absolute agreement) and the minimum detectable change (MDC) through calculation of the Standard Error of the Measurement from the ICC ANOVA table.38 Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (v23, IBM Amarok, USA) and R39,40 with the dabest 0.2.2 package.41

64907 Figure 2. Positioning for dorsiflexion range of motion measurement.

Patient was facing the wall, knee over second toe, pelvis parallel to the wall. The magnetic inclinometer was placed four fingers width proximal to ankle joint.

Interventions

After a self-paced warm-up on a stationary bike for approximately 10 minutes, the patient had a series of three, 10-second mobilization with movement techniques performed on each ankle (Figure 3) at a rate of 1Hz followed by soleus and gastrocnemius self-stretching for 3 repetitions of 30 seconds each with 10 seconds rest between repetitions (Figure 4). Immediately after this, dorsiflexion measurement was taken by the experimental physiotherapist, blinded to the baseline measurements. The only difference in measurement technique described above is that no familiarization trials were conducted. The patient then continued with their scheduled rehabilitation treatment session. Typically, this session would include a variety of balance, strength, and coordination exercises relevant to the athlete’s sport and their rehabilitation stage. After one hour of rest that followed the end of this session, the athlete was then recalled for a manipulative intervention technique which was applied to both ankles. After this intervention, the dorsiflexion range of motion was again assessed by an independent physiotherapist, blinded to the previous findings in a similar manner to the previous measurements (with no warm-up trials).

64908 Figure 3. Mobilization with movement technique.

The mobilization strap is placed slightly distal to the tibia over the athlete’s talus and midfoot, and then while passively moving the ankle towards dorsiflexion, pressure is applied through the therapist’s foot while stabilizing the proximal tibia. This mobilization was performed in an oscillatory manner at approximately 1Hz for the 10 repetitions. The degree of force applied by the therapist was adjusted to be progressively increased until reaching end range dorsiflexion where the end feel of the posterior glide is accomplished, the force was released slowly until returning to the starting position.

Mobilization with movement

The technique utilized incorporated Mulligan principles of applying subtle pain-free overpressure to an end-range movement, or specifically a “sustained passive accessory force / glide to a joint while the patient actively performs a task that was previously identified as being problematic.”42 The patient was supine, foot off the edge of the treatment plinth so that the joint line is about 1 cm away from its edge (Figure 3). A rigid mobilization strap was placed at the level of the joint line its length is then adjusted to be 5 cm from the floor. The belt was folded at its upper part to cover the anterior surface of the talus only (i.e., avoiding coverage of the other tarsals and/or the tibia). The clinician inserted his foot in its lower part to create a downward pressure on the talus. While controlling the stability of the tibia with one hand ensuring full knee extension along the maneuver, the other hand grasping the heel and passively mobilizing the foot from plantarflexion to dorsiflexion. Three sets of 10 consecutive mobilizations with movement are applied with 10 seconds rest between sets.

Stretching

Soleus and gastrocnemius stretching were performed standing on a small (6.5 cm) platform for 3 repetitions of 30-seconds each with 10 seconds rest after each stretch (Figure 4).

64909 Figure 4. Positioning during soleus and gastrocnemius stretching.

The patient uses the wall for balance and drops the heel toward the floor as low as possible while having the knee bent and extended respectively for 3 repetitions of 30 seconds each, with 10 seconds rest between repetitions.

Manipulative technique intervention

The manipulation technique (Figure 5) was performed on both ankles without any additional warm-up.

64910 Figure 5. Description of the dorsiflexion manipulation technique

The patient stood facing a treatment table or a step-box, on the uninvolved leg, and placed the involved foot on the edge of the table so that the mid-tarsal (Chopart) joint is was aligned with edge of the table and the femur is was roughly parallel to the floor when the ankle is was in full dorsiflexion. The patient was asked to “drop” their heel towards the ground for several repetitions until they felt confident and relaxed about this movement with touch guidance from the therapist (Figure 5a,b). After this the clinician stood on the medial aspect of the side being manipulated and faced the patient, placed one hand on the distal part of the femur (so that both condyles are palpated with their thumb and fingers) and the other hand at the dorsum of the forefoot, sliding it toward the ankle joint line so that the line between the thumb and the first finger fit into the talocrural joint without contacting the tibial side, and the hypothenar eminence is resting over the tarsals and the thumb and the second finger pointing to the distal tip of the medial and lateral malleolus accordingly. Both of the clinician’s hands followed and synchronized with the drops for few repetitions until the patient was comfortable with the movement (Figure 5c), and then the clinician suddenly over presses the drop process applying a postero-inferior pressure on the anterior part of the talus coupled with an internal rotation moment with the lower hand, along with an antero-inferior force on the distal part of the femur with the upper hand (Figure 5d). This maneuver forces the knee to move slightly anterior and the tibia inferiorly. The manual pressure was timed to coincide with the patient reaching their end-range of dorsiflexion.

Results

Subject characteristics

Subject characteristics are presented in Table 1. One subject was unable to be measured for the final (post-manipulation) measurement. Sensitivity analysis (imputing these missing data from linear regression) showed no meaningful differences therefore these data were omitted from the final analysis.

Reliability and Minimum Detectable Change

Given the differences in range of motion for the uninjured and injured legs, inter-rater reliability was calculated initially for the injured (ICC2,1 (absolute error) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval: 0.93 to 0.98, p<0.01) and uninjured (0.98, 0.98 to 0.99, p<0.01) legs separately, and then for all legs combined (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99, p<0.01). As these results were essentially the same the pooled (all legs) results are used for calculation of the minimum detectable change which was 3.5°. These measurements and the between group differences are depicted using bootstrap confidence intervals in Figure 6.

Treatment effects

A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to see if there were statistically significant differences in dorsiflexion range of motion at the three time points (Baseline measurement 1, post-MWM, and post-manipulation) for each of the injured and uninjured legs separately. There were no outliers and the data were normally distributed (visual inspection, Q-Q plots, and Shapiro-Wilk tests). The assumption of sphericity was met for both analyses (injured legs: χ2 = 8.59, p = 0.014; uninjured legs: χ2 = 9.97, p = 0.007). After post-hoc adjustment for multiple comparisons (Sidak) statistically significant differences were seen for dorsiflexion at all time points (p<0.01) except for the two baseline measures. It should be noted however that only the differences between baseline and manipulation for the injured and uninjured legs (6.9° and 4.7° improvement respectively), and injured leg mobilization with movement to manipulation (5.1°) exceeded the dorsiflexion minimum detectable change of 3.5°. These differences are depicted using bootstrap confidence intervals in Figure 7 and Table 2.

Between group comparisons for the baseline (reliability) measures, and the first baseline measure compared to the post-mobilization with movement, and post-manipulation conditions for both the injured and uninjured legs. Note that the MDC for this measurement is 3.5° therefore the only measurements to be considered clinically significant are: the injured leg from baseline to post-Manipulation and from post-MWM to post manipulation, while for the uninjured leg only baseline to post-manipulation reached this hurdle (“MWM”: mobilization with movement).

Discussion

The approach described here documents, for the first time, baseline dorsiflexion range of motion, and test-retest reliability for this measure along with in-session measurements after both a mobilization-with-movement and stretching, and exercise and a novel manipulation intervention. The stretching and mobilization with movement was associated with a likely clinically insignificant improvement of approximately 1-2°, and a further improvement of about 4-5° after the exercise treatment and the novel manipulation technique. The combination intervention appears to largely restore the injured ankle dorsiflexion range of motion compared to the baseline range of the healthy ankle (from 28° to 35° and 37° respectively). Previously we had documented healthy athletes’ weight-bearing dorsiflexion range of motion to be approximately 35° which suggests this combination of interventions is restoring “normal” range of motion in athletes.24 It should be noted however that the uninjured ankle demonstrated an improvement of a similar magnitude compared to the injured ankle. It is not clear if the therapeutic target value of the baseline uninvolved ankle’s range of motion is appropriate, or if clinicians should aim for the “best possible” range available on the uninjured ankle.

The effects of the clinical intervention demonstrated here reflect usual clinical (multimodal) practice. Typically, clinical research will consider only a single intervention performed in isolation which allows for a clearer depiction of such an isolated intervention. This does not reflect usual clinical practice however where multimodal interventions are commonplace during an encounter. The authors’ suggest that this approach may be useful to further tease out aspects of a clinical encounter which contribute to improvements as well as their relative contributions, although future research will need to consider the order of application, more frequent measurements, the longer-term maintenance of these ranges of motion, and whether these improvements in flexibility transfer to daily activities.

The actual anatomic effects of the interventions cannot be inferred from this research. While some researchers ascribe treatment benefits to changing joint mechanics others suggest combinations of soft tissue relaxation and/or stretch tolerance are more important factors.6,43–50 The data presented here suggests that stretch tolerance is less likely to be a major contributor to the improvements seen given the two baseline measures remained essentially unchanged however beyond this we are unable to speculate as to exactly how these ranges of motion are improving. Future work might consider muscle tone, tissue compliance, and arthrokinematics as potential sources of the improvements seen.

64911 Table 1. Summary subject characteristics

Age	Height	Weight	BMI	Professional sport (n)	Recreational sport (n)	
Mean: 29.1
(SD: 6.4, Range: 18 to 54)	179.3
(SD: 8.7, Range: 161 to 202)	79.4
(SD: 15.6, Range: 58 to 127)	24.6
(SD: 4.0, Range: 19 to 37)	Football: 25
Basketball: 3
Volleyball: 3
Rugby: 3
Handball: 2
Track & field: 1	Ice hockey: 1
Football: 1	

64913 Figure 6. Baseline dorsiflexion measures for both the injured and uninjured groups along with bootstrap estimated paired mean differences.

The two slopegraphs on the left are the two measures each for the uninjured and injured legs. To the right is the bootstrap estimated group mean difference for the injured and uninjured legs along with its distribution.

To the authors’ knowledge, there is little research describing within-session changes in populations of ankle injured athletes with reduced dorsiflexion undertaking typical multimodal rehabilitation. Serial changes after repeated application of the same (mobilization) intervention34 or the results of complete heterogenous treatment approaches are more commonly reported.3,51 These approaches do not allow understanding of the different components of usual multimodal interventions and require different research methods.52

Importantly, the changes seen here are only documented within the session, in a static measurement, not during gait or other athletic tasks. Future research should examine the time course of these changes, specifically how long changes persist in the absence of further intervention, and whether these static improvements in flexibility are associated with altered kinematics and kinetics during functional tasks such as running, jumping, and direction change. These limitations notwithstanding, the previously documented association of reductions in dorsiflexion range of motion with adverse outcomes make the current findings likely of interest to clinicians and researchers alike.

Clinical Implications

The multi-modal intervention presented here resulted in potentially clinically important improvements in ankle dorsiflexion range of motion in a population that had failed to show sufficient improvement in this rehabilitation goal. Incremental improvements were seen with both the mobilization with movement and stretching, and subsequent exercise and manipulation interventions. Clinically, the authors have noticed this combination of treatment interventions to show larger effects than any single intervention in the management of ankle dorsiflexion range of motion deficit. While we might attribute short-term improvements in flexibility to the application of manual therapy techniques, clinicians should consider the possibility that the exercise interventions may have contributed to these improvements when applied in combination with these techniques. The order of applications as well as the dose and the grade of the manual therapy techniques (repetitions and force applied) and exercises should be investigated in future research.

64914 Figure 7. Estimation plot of dorsiflexion range of motion at: baseline (first measurement), post-stretching and mobilization-with-movement, and post-clinical exercise and then manipulation (upper panel - injured ankles filled circles on the left, uninjured on the right). Lower panel shows the bootstrap estimated mean differences for both the injured and uninjured legs (with the associated 95% confidence intervals) along with standard and confidence interval for these estimates.

Dashed horizontal line in the mean difference panel is placed at 3.5° representing the MDC for the dorsiflexion measure.

64912 Table 2. Between group comparisons for the baseline (reliability) measures, and the first baseline measure compared to the post-mobilization with movement, and post-manipulation conditions for both the injured and uninjured legs

Comparison	Mean Difference (95% confidence interval)	t	df	P-value	
Injured Baseline 2 – Injured Baseline 1	0.18° (-0.34° to 0.71°)	0.70	41	0.49	
Uninjured Baseline 2 – Uninjured Baseline 1	-0.09° (-0.52° to 0.35°)	-0.40	33	0.69	
Injured Post-MWM – Injured Baseline 1	1.92° (1.30° to 2.53°)	6.28	41	<0.01	
Uninjured Post-MWM – Uninjured Baseline 1	1.36° (0.72° to 2.01°)	4.30	33	<0.01	
Injured Post-Manipulation – Injured Baseline 1	6.89° (6.09° to 7.69°)	17.42	40	<0.01	
Uninjured Post﻿-﻿Manipulation – Uninjured Baseline 1	4.74° (3.71° to 5.78°)	9.34	32	<0.01	
Injured Post-Manipulation – Injured Post-MWM	5.10° (4.50° to 5.69°)	17.29	40	<0.01	
Uninjured Post-Manipulation – Uninjured Post-MWM	3.49° (2.60° to 4.38°)	8.01	32	<0.01	
Note that the MDC for this measurement is 3.5° therefore the only measurements to be considered clinically significant are: the injured leg from baseline to post-Manipulation and from post-MWM to post manipulation, while for the uninjured leg only baseline to post-manipulation reached this hurdle (“MWM”: mobilization with movement).

Limitations

Due to the nature of the clinical setting, this research was conducted only on adult male professional athletes; extrapolation to adolescents, females, and non-athletes should be done with care. As we only measured dorsiflexion range of motion four times during each session, we are unable to describe the independent effects of the exercise and manipulation interventions performed, nor the possible effects of a sham intervention. Future research could address this limitation but would need to control for differences in exercise prescription and baseline characteristics of the patients. The longer-term effects of these interventions were not documented need to be investigated in future research.

Conclusion

A combination of a mobilization with movement, exercise and stretching, and a novel manipulation induced changes in weight-bearing ankle dorsiflexion which were likely clinically meaningful. These represent relatively simple interventions which can be safely applied clinically for patients with persisting restrictions in ankle dorsiflexion. Future research needs to describe how long these changes are maintained, and if these changes are associated with other functional improvements such as performance and re-injury risk.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors state no conflict of interest perceived or actual in the creation of this research.
==== Refs
Clinical assessment of acute lateral ankle sprain injuries (ROAST): 2019 consensus statement and recommendations of the International Ankle Consortium Br J Sports Med Delahunt E. Bleakley C. M. Bossard D. S. Caulfield B. M. Docherty C. L. Doherty C. Fourchet F. Fong D. T. Hertel J. Hiller C. E. Kaminski T. W. McKeon P. O. Refshauge K. M. Remus A. Verhagen E. Vicenzino B. T. Wikstrom E. A. Gribble P. A. 2018
52 20 1304 1310 1473-0480 (Electronic) 0306-3674 (Linking) 10.1136/bjsports-2017-098885
Ankle stability and movement coordination impairments: Lateral ankle ligament sprains revision 2021 J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Martin R. L. Davenport T. E. Fraser J. J. Sawdon-Bea J. Carcia C. R. Carroll L. A. Kivlan B. R. Carreira D. 2021
51 4 CPG1 CPG80 10.2519/jospt.2021.0302
Therapeutic interventions for increasing ankle dorsiflexion after ankle sprain: a systematic review J Athl Train Terada M. Pietrosimone B. G. Gribble P. A. 2013
48 5 696 709 1938-162X (Electronic) 1062-6050 (Linking) 10.4085/1062-6050-48.4.11 23914912
Treatment and prevention of acute and recurrent ankle sprain: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis Br J Sports Med Doherty C. Bleakley C. Delahunt E. Holden S. 2017
51 2 113 125 1473-0480 (Electronic) 0306-3674 (Linking) 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096178 28053200
Limited dorsiflexion predisposes to injuries of the ankle in children J Bone Joint Surg Br Tabrizi P. McIntyre W. M. Quesnel M. B. Howard A. W. 2000
82 8 1103 6 0301-620X (Print) 0301-620X (Linking) 10.1302/0301-620x.82b8.10134 11132266
Functional Anatomy, pathomechanics, and pathophysiology of lateral ankle instability J Athl Train Hertel J. 2002
37 4 364 375 12937557
The effect of foot structure and range of motion on musculoskeletal overuse injuries Am J Sports Med Kaufman K. R. Brodine S. K. Shaffer R. A. Johnson C. W. Cullison T. R. 1999
27 5 585 93 0363-5465 (Print) 0363-5465 (Linking) 10.1177/03635465990270050701 10496574
Relation between running injury and static lower limb alignment in recreational runners Br J Sports Med Lun V. Meeuwisse W. H. Stergiou P. Stefanyshyn D. 2004
38 5 576 80 1473-0480 (Electronic) 0306-3674 (Linking) 10.1136/bjsm.2003.005488 15388542
Risk factors for Plantar fasciitis: a matched case-control study J Bone Joint Surg Am Riddle D. L. Pulisic M. Pidcoe P. Johnson R. E. 2003
85 5 872 7 0021-9355 (Print) 0021-9355 (Linking) 10.2106/00004623-200305000-00015 12728038
Hamstring and ankle flexibility deficits are weak risk factors for hamstring injury in professional soccer players: A prospective cohort study of 438 players including 78 injuries Am J Sports Med van Dyk N. Farooq A. Bahr R. Witvrouw E. 2018
46 9 2203 2210 10.1177/0363546518773057 29772188
Dorsiflexion range of motion significantly influences dynamic balance J Sci Med Sport Hoch M. C. Staton G. S. McKeon P. O. 2011
14 1 90 2 1878-1861 (Electronic) 1878-1861 (Linking) 10.1016/j.jsams.2010.08.001 20843744
Intrinsic predictive factors of noncontact lateral ankle sprain in collegiate athletes: A case-control study Orthop J Sports Med Kobayashi T. Yoshida M. Yoshida M. Gamada K. 2013
1 7 2325967113518163 10.1177/2325967113518163 26535263
Ankle kinematics of individuals with chronic ankle instability while walking and jogging on a treadmill in shoes Phys Ther Sport Chinn L. Dicharry J. Hertel J. 2013
14 4 232 9 1873-1600 (Electronic) 1466-853X (Linking) 10.1016/j.ptsp.2012.10.001 23623243
Dorsiflexion deficit during jogging with chronic ankle instability J Sci Med Sport Drewes L. K. McKeon P. O. Kerrigan D. C. Hertel J. 2009
12 6 685 7 1878-1861 (Electronic) 1878-1861 (Linking) 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.07.003 18835218
Changes in lower limb kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activity in subjects with functional instability of the ankle joint during a single leg drop jump J Orthop Res Delahunt E. Monaghan K. Caulfield B. 2006
24 10 1991 2000 0736-0266 (Print) 0736-0266 (Linking) 10.1002/jor.20235 16894592
Lower extremity biomechanics during a drop-vertical jump in participants with or without chronic ankle instability J Athl Train Herb C. C. Grossman K. Feger M. A. Donovan L. Hertel J. 2018
53 4 364 371 10.4085/1062-6050-481-15 29667844
Coordination and symmetry patterns during the drop vertical jump in people with chronic ankle instability and lateral ankle sprain copers Phys Ther Doherty C. Bleakley C. Hertel J. Caulfield B. Ryan J. Sweeney K. Patterson M. R. Delahunt E. 2016
96 8 1152 61 10.2522/ptj.20150160 26893510
Coordination and symmetry patterns during the drop vertical jump, 6-months after first-time lateral ankle sprain J Orthop Res Doherty C. Bleakley C. Hertel J. Caulfield B. Ryan J. Sweeney K. Patterson M. R. Delahunt E. 2015
33 10 1537 44 1554-527X (Electronic) 0736-0266 (Linking) 10.1002/jor.22915 25940807
Ankle equinus deformity and its relationship to high plantar pressure in a large population with diabetes mellitus J Am Podiatr Med Assoc Lavery L. A. Armstrong D. G. Boulton A. J. Diabetex Research Group 2002
92 9 479 82 8750-7315 (Print) 1930-8264 (Linking) 10.7547/87507315-92-9-479 12381796
A new device for assessing ankle dorsiflexion motion: reliability and validity J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Wilken J. Rao S. Estin M. Saltzman C. L. Yack H. J. 2011
41 4 274 80 0190-6011 (Print) 0190-6011 (Linking) 10.2519/jospt.2011.3397 21460462
Isolated gastrocnemius tightness J Bone Joint Surg Am DiGiovanni C. W. Kuo R. Tejwani N. Price R. Hansen, S. T., Jr. Cziernecki J. Sangeorzan B. J. 2002
84 6 962 70 0021-9355 (Print) 0021-9355 (Linking) 10.2106/00004623-200206000-00010 12063330
Goniometric reliability in a clinical setting. Subtalar and ankle joint measurements Phys Ther Elveru R. A. Rothstein J. M. Lamb R. L. 1988
68 5 672 7 0031-9023 (Print) 0031-9023 (Linking) 10.1093/ptj/68.5.672 3362980
Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of a weight-bearing lunge measure of ankle dorsiflexion Aust J Physiother Bennell K. L. Talbot R. C. Wajswelner H. Techovanich W. Kelly D. H. Hall A. J. 1998
44 3 175 180 0004-9514 (Print) 0004-9514 (Linking) 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60377-9 11676731
Athletes at late stage rehabilitation have persisting deficits in plantar- and dorsiflexion, and inversion (but not eversion) after ankle sprain Phys Ther Sport Abassi M. Bleakley C. Whiteley R. 2019
38 30 35 1873-1600 (Electronic) 1466-853X (Linking) 10.1016/j.ptsp.2019.04.015 31042613
The initial effects of a Mulligan's mobilization with movement technique on dorsiflexion and pain in subacute ankle sprains Man Ther Collins N. Teys P. Vicenzino B. 2004
9 2 77 82 1356-689X (Print) 1356-689X (Linking) 10.1016/S1356-689X(03)00101-2 15040966
Initial changes in posterior talar glide and dorsiflexion of the ankle after mobilization with movement in individuals with recurrent ankle sprain J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Vicenzino B. Branjerdporn M. Teys P. Jordan K. 2006
36 7 464 71 0190-6011 (Print) 0190-6011 (Linking) 10.2519/jospt.2006.2265 16881463
Efficacy of mobilization with movement for patients with limited dorsiflexion after ankle sprain: a crossover trial Physiotherapy Canada Reid Andrea Birmingham Trevor B Alcock Greg 2007
59 3 166 172 0300-0508
The effect of joint mobilization on functional outcomes associated with chronic ankle instability Hoch M.C. University of Kentucky 2011

Effects of joint mobilization on chronic ankle instability: a randomized controlled trial Disabil Rehabil Cruz-Diaz D. Lomas Vega R. Osuna-Perez M. C. Hita-Contreras F. Martinez-Amat A. 2015
37 7 601 10 1464-5165 (Electronic) 0963-8288 (Linking) 10.3109/09638288.2014.935877 24989067
The effect of two mobilization techniques on dorsiflexion in people with chronic ankle instability Phys Ther Sport Marron-Gomez D. Rodriguez-Fernandez A. L. Martin-Urrialde J. A. 2015
16 1 10 5 1873-1600 (Electronic) 1466-853X (Linking) 10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.02.001 24679362
Effectiveness of clinician-and patient-applied mobilisation with movement technique to increase ankle dorsiflexion range of motion International Journal of Therapy And Rehabilitation Stanek Justin M Pieczynski Alex E 2020
27 4 1 11
Does stretching increase ankle dorsiflexion range of motion? A systematic review Br J Sports Med Radford J. A. Burns J. Buchbinder R. Landorf K. B. Cook C. 2006
40 10 870 5; discussion 875 1473-0480 (Electronic) 0306-3674 (Linking) 10.1136/bjsm.2006.029348 16926259
Changes in active ankle dorsiflexion range of motion after acute inversion ankle sprain J Sport Rehabil Youdas J. W. McLean T. J. Krause D. A. Hollman J. H. 2009
18 3 358 74 1056-6716 (Print) 1056-6716 (Linking) 10.1123/jsr.18.3.358 19827500
The evaluation of joint mobilization dosage on ankle range of motion in individuals with decreased dorsiflexion and a history of ankle sprain J Sport Rehabil Meyer J. E. Rivera M. J. Powden C. J. 2020
1 6 10.1123/jsr.2020-0114
Predicting short-term response to thrust and nonthrust manipulation and exercise in patients post inversion ankle sprain J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Whitman J. M. Cleland J. A. Mintken P. E. Keirns M. Bieniek M. L. Albin S. R. Magel J. McPoil T. G. 2009
39 3 188 200 0190-6011 (Print) 0190-6011 (Linking) 10.2519/jospt.2009.2940 19252260
Lasting effects of one bout of two 15-second passive stretches on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Zito M. Driver D. Parker C. Bohannon R. 1997
26 4 214 21 0190-6011 (Print) 0190-6011 (Linking) 10.2519/jospt.1997.26.4.214 9310913
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies J Clin Epidemiol von Elm E. Altman D. G. Egger M. Pocock S. J. Gotzsche P. C. Vandenbroucke J. P. Strobe Initiative 2008
61 4 344 9 0895-4356 (Print) 0895-4356 (Linking) 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 18313558
Foundations of clinical research : applications to practice Portney Leslie Gross Watkins Mary P. Prentice Hall 2000
0838526950
A language and environment for statistical computing Team R Core R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria 2012
https://R-project.org
RStudio: integrated development for R Team R RStudio, Inc Boston, MA 2015
https://rstudio.com
Moving beyond P values: data analysis with estimation graphics Nat Methods Ho J. Tumkaya T. Aryal S. Choi H. Claridge-Chang A. 2019
16 7 565 566 10.1038/s41592-019-0470-3 31217592
The Mulligan Concept of Manual Therapy: textbook of techniques Hing Wayne Hall Toby Mulligan Brian Elsevier 2020
9780729542821
The effect of lateral ankle sprain on dorsiflexion range of motion, posterior talar glide, and joint laxity J Orthop Sports Phys Ther Denegar C. R. Hertel J. Fonseca J. 2002
32 4 166 73 0190-6011 (Print) 0190-6011 (Linking) 10.2519/jospt.2002.32.4.166 11949665
A new paradigm for rehabilitation of patients with chronic ankle instability Phys Sportsmed Donovan L. Hertel J. 2012
40 4 41 51 0091-3847 (Print) 0091-3847 (Linking) 10.3810/psm.2012.11.1987
A randomized controlled trial of a passive accessory joint mobilization on acute ankle inversion sprains Phys Ther Green T. Refshauge K. Crosbie J. Adams R. 2001
81 4 984 94 0031-9023 (Print) 0031-9023 (Linking) 11276181
2016 consensus statement of the International Ankle Consortium: prevalence, impact and long-term consequences of lateral ankle sprains Br J Sports Med Gribble P. A. Bleakley C. M. Caulfield B. M. Docherty C. L. Fourchet F. Fong D. T. Hertel J. Hiller C. E. Kaminski T. W. McKeon P. O. Refshauge K. M. Verhagen E. A. Vicenzino B. T. Wikstrom E. A. Delahunt E. 2016
50 24 1493 1495 1473-0480 (Electronic) 0306-3674 (Linking) 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096188 27259750
Mechanical contributions to chronic lateral ankle instability Sports Med Hubbard T. J. Hertel J. 2006
36 3 263 77 0112-1642 (Print) 0112-1642 (Linking) 10.2165/00007256-200636030-00006 16526836
Lateral ankle sprains: a comprehensive review: part 1: etiology, pathoanatomy, histopathogenesis, and diagnosis Med Sci Sports Exerc Safran M. R. Benedetti R. S. Bartolozzi 3rd A. R. Mandelbaum B. R. 1999
31 7 Suppl S429 37 10.1097/00005768-199907001-00004 10416544
Lateral ankle sprains: a comprehensive review part 2: treatment and rehabilitation with an emphasis on the athlete Med Sci Sports Exerc Safran M. R. Zachazewski J. E. Benedetti R. S. Bartolozzi 3rd A. R. Mandelbaum R. 1999
31 7 Suppl S438 47 10.1097/00005768-199907001-00005 10416545
The ankle-joint complex: A kinesiologic approach to lateral ankle sprains J Athl Train Medina McKeon J. M. Hoch M. C. 2019
54 6 589 602 10.4085/1062-6050-472-17 31184957
Chronic effect of different types of stretching on ankle dorsiflexion range of motion: Systematic review and meta-analysis Foot (Edinb) Medeiros D. M. Martini T. F. 2018
34 28 35 1532-2963 (Electronic) 0958-2592 (Linking) 10.1016/j.foot.2017.09.006 29223884
Manipulative therapy effectiveness following acute lateral ankle sprains: A systematic review Athletic Training & Sports Health Care Wikstrom Erik A. McKeon Patrick O. 2011
3 6 271 279 10.3928/19425864-20110131-02
