Ability of functional performance assessments to discriminate athletes with and without chronic ankle instability : a case-control study

BACKGROUND: The decline in motor function associated with chronic ankle instability (CAI) can be assessed using Functional Performance tests. Ankle muscular strength, endurance and range of motion (ROM) has been assessed in previous studies but functional activities such as sprinting and change of direction are less well studied in athletes with CAI. Hence the aim of this study was to determine how sprint, change of direction, ankle isometric strength, endurance and ROM measures may be associated with discriminate athletes with and without CAI. METHODS: One hundred and six participants (CAI: n = 53 or no CAI: n = 53) provided informed consent to participate in this study. Participants performed three functional performance tests, (30-m sprint test, Modified Illinois change of direction test (MICODT)) and change of direction test. Range of motion for dorsiflexion was measured using weight bearing lunge test and inversion, eversion and plantarflexion using Saunders® digital inclinometer. Strength was assessed using Baseline® hand-held dynamometer for plantarflexors, dorsiflexors, invertors and evertors. Muscular endurance was assessed by single heel raise test and Modified single heel raise test. Between-group comparisons utilised Student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney U-tests, with a number of unique variable and multivariable binomial logistic regression performed to determine which performance measures may discriminate participants with CAI. RESULTS: The CAI participants performed significantly worse in the three functional performance tests as well as multiple measures of ankle ROM, isometric strength and muscular endurance (p < 0.008). While several measures of ROM (plantarflexion and dorsiflexion), strength (inversion and eversion) and both muscular endurance tests were significantly associated with CAI in the univariable analysis, the strongest association was the functional performance tests, especially MICDOT time (odds ratio (95% CI): 0.06 [0.02–0.17], sensitivity 94.3%, specificity 88.7%). Multivariable regression analyses indicated that performance across the functional performance tests were more strongly associated with CAI than any ankle ROM, muscular strength or endurance test. Further, the inclusion of the best ankle range of motion, strength or muscular endurance tests did not significantly improve upon the association of the MICDOT with CAI. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic ankle instability in athletic populations appears to be highly associated with declines in functional performance and to a somewhat lesser extent, ankle range of motion, strength and muscle endurance measures. This may suggest that optimal rehabilitation for athletes with CAI may require a greater focus on improving sprinting speed and change of direction ability in the mid to latter stages of rehabilitation, with regular assessments of these functional performance tests necessary to guide the progression and overload of this training.