Title Page
Abstract
Contents
1. Introduction 12
1.1. Background and Necessity 12
1.2. Purpose 15
1.3. Hypothesis 15
2. Theoretical Background 16
2.1. Anatomical Structure of Ankle Joint 16
2.2. Joint Mobilization 16
3. Methods 17
3.1. Participants 17
3.2. Study Procedures 17
3.3. Study Methods(Interventions) 20
3.3.1. The Kaltenborn-Evjenth Concept 20
3.3.2. KEFG 21
3.3.3. KEG 23
3.3.4. PROM 25
3.3.5. NDT 27
3.4. Assessments 31
3.4.1. Joint range inspection 31
3.4.2. Strength test 33
3.4.3. Balance ability Test 36
3.3.4. Gait ability Test 39
3.5. Statistical Analysis 43
4. Results 44
4.1. Validate homogeneity of subject's general characteristics and subject's dependent variables 44
4.2. Comparison of joint mobility changes 46
4.3. Comparison of muscle changes in the ankle 50
4.4. Comparison of Balance Ability Changes 56
4.5. Comparison of Gait Ability Changes 62
5. Discussion 68
5.1. Comparison of Joint Mobility Changes 69
5.2. Comparison of Muscle Changes in the Ankle 70
5.3. Comparison of Balance Ability Changes 71
5.4. Comparison of Gait Ability Changes 73
5.5. Limitations 74
6. Conclusion 75
II. List of references 77
III. List of abbreviations 82
VI. Appendix 86
7.1. Berg Balance Scale 86
7.2. Agreement to Participate in Research 89
7.3. Explanation for the subject agreement 90
Table 1. KEFG Intervention 21
Table 2. KEG Intervention 23
Table 3. PROM Intervention 25
Table 4. NDT Intervention 27
Table 5. General Characteristics of the Participants 45
Table 6. ROM of Ankles Among the Three Groups Pre- and Post-Intervention 47
Table 7. MMT of Ankles Among the Three Groups Pre- and Post-Intervention 51
Table 8. Balance Ability Among the Three Groups Pre- and Post-Intervention 57
Table 9. Gait Ability Among the Three Groups Pre- and Post-Intervention 63
Figure 1. Flow Chart of the Experimental Procedure 19
Figure 2. KEFG start position 22
Figure 3. KEFG end position 22
Figure 4. KEG start position 24
Figure 5. KEG end position 24
Figure 6. PROM start position 26
Figure 7. PROM end position 26
Figure 8. Pier exercise start position 28
Figure 9. Pier exercise end position 28
Figure 10. Pelvic exercise start position 29
Figure 11. Pelvic exercise end position 29
Figure 12. Sit-up exercise start position 30
Figure 13. Sit-up exercise end position 30
Figure 14. DUALER IQ 32
Figure 15. Measuring the range of motion of dorsiflexion 32
Figure 16. JTech Commander MMT Device 34
Figure 17. Measuring the dorsiflexion strength 34
Figure 18. Measuring the plantarflexion strength 35
Figure 19. Biorescue(RM INGENIERIE, France) 37
Figure 20. Static balancing capacity measurement method using Biorescue 37
Figure 21. TUG test, start position 40
Figure 22. TUG test, middle position 40
Figure 23. TUG test, end position 40
Figure 24. 10MWT 42
Figure 25. Measuring the 10MWT 42
Figure 26. Comparison of Ankle ROM Between Pre- and Post-Intervention within the Groups 48
Figure 27. Comparison of Ankle ROM Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 49
Figure 28. Comparison of Dorsiflexion MMT Between Pre- and Post-Intervention Within the Groups 52
Figure 29. Comparison of Dorsiflexion MMT Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 53
Figure 30. Comparison of Plantarflexion MMT Between Pre- and Post-Intervention Within the Groups 54
Figure 31. Comparison of Plantarflexion MMT Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 55
Figure 32. Comparison of Biorescue Score Between Pre- and Post-Intervention Within the Groups 58
Figure 33. Comparison of Biorescue Score Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 59
Figure 34. Comparison of BBS Score Between Pre- and Post-Intervention Within the Groups 60
Figure 35. Comparison of BBS Score Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 61
Figure 36. Comparison of TUG Between Pre- and Post-Intervention within the Groups 64
Figure 37. Comparison of TUG Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 65
Figure 38. Comparison of 10MWT Between Pre- and Post-Intervention Within the Groups 66
Figure 39. Comparison of 10MWT Between the Change in Values Among the Groups 67