Next Article in Journal
Parity-Associated Differences in the Antioxidants and Fecal Microbiota of Bactrian Camels
Next Article in Special Issue
A Nutritional Supplement Containing Curcumin C3 Complex, Glucosamine, and Chondroitin Alleviates Osteoarthritis in Mice and Canines
Previous Article in Journal
Variations in Intestinal Microbiota Among Three Species in the Cervidae Family Under the Same Feeding Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical Trials of Cancer Immunogene Therapies in Companion Animals: An Update (2017–2024)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Veterinary Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/vetsci12050439
vetsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Kinesiology Taping Does Not Affect Tarsal Joint Motion During Selected Exercises in Dogs †

by
Rebecca C. Noel
1,
Leann M. Shaw
2,
Nicholas H. Millis
3,
Krysta Janas
4 and
Darryl L. Millis
5,*
1
Metairie Small Animal Hospital, New Orleans, LA 70005, USA
2
VCA California Veterinary Specialists, Murrieta, CA 92563, USA
3
Veterinary Care and Specialty Group, Chattanooga, TN 37408, USA
4
BluePearl Pet Hospital Gwinnett, Lawrenceville, GA 30043, USA
5
Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37919, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
This paper is an extended version of the abstract Effect of kinesiology taping on gait and selected exercises in dogs published in the Proceedings of the 11th International Association of Veterinary Rehabilitation and Physical Therapy. Cambridge, England, Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 2023, 65(Suppl 1):O.03 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13028-023-00706-w.
Vet. Sci. 2025, 12(5), 439; https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050439
Submission received: 13 March 2025 / Revised: 15 April 2025 / Accepted: 30 April 2025 / Published: 3 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Therapy in Companion Animals—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Kinesiology taping has increased in use in human and veterinary medicine, both for athletic performance and treatment of various musculoskeletal and neurologic conditions. Studies in people suggest a mild effect for many uses. There are very few studies regarding kinesiology taping in veterinary medicine. Prospective evaluation of its effect on gait and mobility is essential to evaluate the efficacy of kinesiology taping. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of kinesiology taping applied to the tarsal joint and its effect on selected exercises in dogs using kinetic and kinematic gait analysis. In normal dogs, kinesiology taping had no effect on weightbearing forces at a walk and trot, and motion of the stifle and tarsal joints while walking, trotting, or stepping over cavaletti rails. Kinesiology taping should be assessed in other joints and in dogs with neurologic or orthopedic conditions.

Abstract

Background: Use of kinesiology taping has increased in veterinary medicine, yet there are few studies of its effects. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of kinesiology tape placed on the dorsal surface of the tarsus on kinetic and kinematic gait characteristics while performing selected exercises in dogs using 3D motion capture and force platform analysis of gait. Methods: Ten clinically normal, healthy, adult mixed-breed dogs were recruited for this study. Reflective markers were applied to the skin of the left and right pelvic limbs of each dog. Eight infrared cameras were positioned around a 13 m platform containing a force platform. Dogs were walked, trotted, and led over cavaletti rails with and without kinesiology tape extending from the distal tibia, crossing the cranial surface of the tarsus, and extending to the dorsal surface of the metatarsals. The evaluations were repeated 2 h later. Maximum flexion and extension in the sagittal plane and maximum angular acceleration and velocity were measured at the tarsus and stifle for each dog. Peak vertical (ZPeak), braking (YA), and propulsion (YB) forces were determined as a percentage of body weight while walking and trotting. Results: Ground-reaction forces were greater at the trot compared to the walk, and stifle and tarsal flexion were greater with stepping over cavaletti rails as compared to walking and trotting. There were no differences in kinematic or kinetic measurements related to the kinesiology tape application, time, or exercise being performed. Conclusions: Kinesiology tape had no effect on tarsal joint gait characteristics while walking, trotting, or stepping over cavaletti rails when applied to the dorsal tarsus of normal dogs.

1. Introduction

Kinesiology taping has increased in popularity both in human and veterinary applications since its inception in the 1970s. Today, it is commonly seen in athletes of numerous species in various activities. Application of kinesiology tape to the skin reportedly targets sensory receptors of the cutaneous skin, lifts tissues to provide lymphatic drainage, and improves circulation with simultaneous analgesia via nociceptive transmission inhibition [1]. There may be a benefit in using kinesiology tape for pain management [2,3,4,5], although the effects seem to be mild in musculoskeletal conditions, including osteoarthritis pain [6,7,8]. Additionally, kinesiology tape is postulated to stimulate pathways related to the mechanoreceptive and proprioceptive pathways, thereby modifying joint kinematics [9]. In humans, it is also used to improve athletic performance despite a lack of literary support [10]. However, most studies indicate negligible benefit for muscle strengthening in healthy adult humans [11,12], and there may be few benefits regarding athletic performance in healthy individuals [10]. Some studies have suggested an improvement in muscle fatigue [13,14,15], while others have shown no improvement in muscle strength or athletic performance [3,10,16,17]. Further, kinesiology taping may have limited effects to reduce swelling after an acute ankle sprain [18,19].
In veterinary medicine, kinesiology tape is used in horses to treat muscular conditions, fascial restrictions, and postural imbalance, although there is little evidence of beneficial effects [9,20,21,22]. Ramon et al. demonstrated decreased peak vertical force and limited flexion of the fetlock in horses during the swing phase of gait with kinesiology tape applied [22]. A study of the effects of kinesiology tape applied to the forelimbs of horses showed no effect on forelimb kinematics or muscle EMG activity [23]. However, application to the abdominal muscles increased craniocaudal activity of the body [24].
There is very little evidence regarding kinesiology tape application techniques or how it affects joint motion and weight bearing during simple exercises in normal dogs. The authors have used kinesiology tape on several dogs with various pathologies and perceived efficacy in terms of increased joint motion. However, the magnitude of effect and the duration of action have not been evaluated under controlled conditions with objective outcome measures in normal dogs. With the advent of veterinary-specific kinesiology tape, manufacturers claim the tape can last for 5 days and can be used to treat conditions ranging from muscle injury, inflammation, tendonitis, desmitis, and increased joint range of motion (RockTape, https://rocktape.com.au/canine/ (accessed on 3 March 2025)).
The purpose of this study was to investigate gait changes following the application of kinesiology tape on the dorsal canine tarsus. Additionally, tape longevity and application protocol were evaluated. We hypothesized that there would be increased range of motion and decreased peak vertical force between the taped limbs of each dog at the walk, trot, and while walking over cavaletti rails.

2. Materials and Methods

Participants: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the University of Tennessee, and written informed consent was obtained from owners. Ten client-owned dogs were included in the study reported here. Weight, age, and breed were recorded. An initial baseline evaluation was performed, including orthopedic, neurologic, and general physical examinations. Individuals were excluded for any history of significant mobility disorder, obvious visual lameness, greater than 10% difference in peak vertical force between forelimbs or between hind limbs at a walk and a trot, if gross joint instability was present, or if there were any other clinically abnormal findings on physical examination. Dogs were between 2 and 10 years of age and weighed between 15 and 50 kg.
Kinematic Data Collection: A 3-dimensional testing space measuring 3 × 1 m was established on a 13 m walkway centered over the force platform. A right-handed orthogonal global coordinate system was established within the 3D testing space with 0,0,0 (X, Y, Z) located on the force platform. On each data-collection day, 8 high-speed data-capture cameras (250 Hz Vero cameras, Vicon Motion Systems Inc., Centennila, CO, USA) were calibrated to the testing space using an active calibration wand (Vicon Motion Systems Inc., Centennila, CO, USA). Markers were tracked, and motion capture data were recorded using commercial software (Vicon Nexus version 2.11, Vicon Motion Systems, Inc.).
Motion capture began with a static calibration with 10–15 frames of data captured, with 23 reflective, spherical markers on each pelvic limb (46 total markers) placed on anatomic landmarks or as rigid femur cluster markers on femurs and tibias as described by Fu et al. (Figure 1) [25]. We used multiple rigid cluster design methods based on experience from animal and human biomechanic studies. A 2 × 2 cm and a 3 × 3 cm 3D-printed arched boards using a 20% infill were constructed for application of cluster markers (Figure 2). The boards were covered with Velcro, and the markers were affixed. The arched boards and reflective markers were then affixed to animals using double-sided medical tape and GLUture (Zoetis Inc., Kalamazoo, MI 49007, USA), if necessary. Hair in the area was clipped if more than 0.5 cm in length.
Following the calibration trial, seven markers over anatomic landmarks were removed for the remaining motion trials (Table 1). These markers were virtually reconstructed from the initial static trial using Vicon Procalc software, version 1.5 (Vicon, Colorado) [25,26]. Each dog was walked, trotted, and walked over cavaletti rails four times with the cluster markers in place. The order of data collection was randomized among the three exercises. Data were acquired from the right and left sides separately.
After these trials were captured, kinesiology tape was applied to the dorsal surface of a randomly selected tarsus from the distal tibial tuberosity to the distal metatarsus. The tape was applied by stretching the tape to 25% of the unstretched tape length (to apply under tension) and placed from proximal to distal (Figure 3). We found it necessary in initial attempts to apply a 3 cm-wide anchoring piece (not stretched) at the proximal and distal ends to help hold the tape in place, according to the manufacturer’s instructions (RockTape, Morley, WA, USA). After application, the tape was rubbed for 3 min to activate the adhesive prior to the acclimation period. Dogs were allowed to acclimate to the tape during 5 min of free exercise. Dogs were then walked, trotted, and walked over cavaletti rails to collect kinetic and kinematic data as described, and data were collected 5 min and 2 h after tape application. Cavaletti height was based on the size of the dog, with the cavaletti rail height placed at the junction of the lower and middle third of the antebrachium.
Joint coordinate system: The local coordinate systems (LCS) specific to each segment were designed similarly to Fu et al. [25], with the exception of the foot. The LCS of our foot originated at the caudal aspect of the calcaneus (CALC), with the unit vector of the z-axis defined by the vector between the second and fifth distal metatarsals, the x-axis unit vector was defined by the vector from the caudal calcaneus travelling distally to bisect the z-axis vector. The y-axis unit vector was defined as a cross product of the X and Z vectors. All joint angles were converted to complementary angles, as in the modeled papers [26,27,28,29]. Kinematic data were gap-filled, filtered, and smoothed using Butterworth filtering. Data collected included tarsus joint angles in the X, Y, and Z planes, including peak tarsus and stifle joint flexion and extension, angular velocity, and angular acceleration.
Kinetic Data Collection:
Ground-reaction forces were determined using a force platform (AMTI OR6-6, Watertown, MA, USA) and quadruped software (Acquire version 7.33, Vicon, Centennial, CO, USA). Dogs were walked and trotted over the platform between 0.7 and 1.2 m/s and 1.7 and 2.1 m/s, respectively, with an acceleration of ±0.5 m/s2. Speed and acceleration were measured using five photoelectric cells mounted 50 cm apart at a height of 58 cm within the testing space. Trials were included for analysis if ipsilateral forelimb and hindlimb strikes occurred, velocity and acceleration were within the described parameters, and there were no sudden changes in limb, body, or head motion. Four valid right and left ipsilateral limb strikes were obtained, and the means of the four trials were calculated for each parameter for each side. Peak vertical (ZPeak), braking (YA), and propulsion (YB) forces were determined as a percentage of body weight. Visual examination of the graphical representation confirmed the validity of trials. Kinetic data were collected before tape application and 5 min and 2 h after application.
Kinetic and Kinematic Data Analysis:
A three-way repeated measures ANOVA (SAS, Cary, NC, USA) was performed on ground reaction forces, angular acceleration, angular velocity, and maximum and minimum joint angles of the tarsus and stifle. Comparisons between the taped and untaped limbs, as well as comparisons between exercises (walking, trotting, and cavaletti poles), and exercise × time interaction were performed.

3. Results

3.1. Participants

A total of 10 dogs participated in the study. Breeds included German Shepherd, Standard Poodle, Golden Retriever Mix, Boxer mix, Great Dane, Weimaraner mix, English Retriever Spaniel, and mixed breed dogs. The average age of participants was 6.2 years (range 2 to 10), and the average weight was 25.8 kg (range 17.4–40.4). The body condition score of dogs was 4–6 out of 10. Four dogs had the tape applied to the left tarsus, and six dogs had the tape applied to the right tarsus.
All dogs had short-to-medium length hair; dogs with medium-length hair were clipped for marker application. One dog (German Shepherd) experienced minor dermatitis from clipping. It was treated with topical dilute chlorohexidine and resolved in 5 days without complication. No other complications occurred.

3.2. Kinesiology Tape Longevity

The kinesiology tape either fell off or required additional support pieces applied within 2 h (Figure 4). In most dogs, the tape loosened within 15 min. Additional support pieces were placed perpendicularly on the limb depending on the site of tape failure (Figure 5). Failure occurred most commonly at the tarsocrural joint, likely due to the high motion and angularity in this area. Other sites of failure included the proximal and distal ends of the tape.

3.3. Kinematic Gait Evaluation

There were no significant differences among any of the comparisons, except for significant changes in angular acceleration and angular velocity of joint motion and tarsal and stifle flexion among exercises (Table 2 and Table 3, Figure 6 and Figure 7). Flexion was greatest with cavaletti rail walking, followed by trotting and walking. The presence of kinesiology tape application had no effect on altering the measured variables during a particular exercise, however.

3.4. Kinetic Gait Evaluation

Three-way repeated measures of ANOVA showed no statistical difference between the taped and untaped limbs between limbs, exercise × time, or other comparisons listed in Table 4. There were differences in mean ground reaction forces regarding exercises, with ZPeak and YAPeak being greater with trotting (Figure 8).

4. Discussion

Based on the results reported here, the application of kinesiology tape to the canine tarsus had no significant effect on tarsal or stifle joints regarding gait or performance of selected exercises. The tape had no effect on kinematic joint variables in the tarsus or stifle, similar to the effect of kinesiology taping of the forelimb in horses [23], nor any effect on measured ground reaction forces at the walk or trot, unlike a study of tape application to equine fetlocks [22]. Therefore, our original hypotheses postulating increased range of motion and decreased peak vertical force were rejected.
Studies in people have also found little effect of kinesiology tape on joint motion [30]. However, improvement in muscle strength has been reported in people undergoing kinesiology taping for knee osteoarthritis, muscle fatigue, and shoulder function during performance activities [14,31,32], while other studies have shown no effect [33,34,35]. Although improvement of joint proprioception has been a suggested benefit of kinesiology taping [36,37] and may be beneficial in those with poor proprioception [38], this may not occur in normal patients [39,40,41].
A secondary aim of this study was to evaluate kinesiology tape longevity based on the manufacturer’s claims that it can be worn for 5 days. The tape was applied per the manufacturer’s instructions. In this study, the kinesiology tape did not adhere to the limb as long as expected. All dogs required tape modification within 2 h of application. However, this may be due to the high mobility of the canine tarsus and may not reflect inherent properties of the tape itself or the tape application protocol. It is possible the tape may perform better on other joints or on dogs that are not performing exercises with great joint motion after tape application. It is also unknown if the additional pieces added to maintain tape position (added perpendicularly to the original piece) altered joint motion. Further studies using tape on other joints may produce different results and provide more longevity of the tape.
Based on the results of the study presented here, kinesiology tape does not alter gait or performance of the tested exercises in clinically normal dogs. The tape did not affect any of the measured parameters when compared to the untaped contralateral limb. This is similar to the effect of kinesiology taping of the forelimb in horses and in back flexion and extension, which found no effect on forelimb joint or back kinematics [9,23]. However, the lack of effect of kinesiology taping on ground-reaction forces in dogs differs from a study of tape application to equine fetlocks, which found decreased ground reaction forces [22]. Although we found no effects in our study of normal dogs, studies of kinesiology taping effects in dogs with pathology, such as osteoarthritis, should be considered [42].
Studies evaluating tape application methods may also be warranted. Although some studies have suggested that tape tension and the direction of tape application may make a difference [43,44,45], others have shown that the direction of the tape may not make a difference regarding athletic performance [46,47,48]. Changes in application, such as clipping the hair over the intended area of all study dogs, may help increase contact between the adhesive and skin. Also, tapes from different manufacturers exhibit different characteristics regarding adherence [49,50,51].
Limitations in this study include a small sample size and difficulties in the application of the kinesiology tape and tape longevity. Skin movement about markers is also a limitation of the kinematic evaluation of gait. However, the techniques used in this study allowed noninvasive collection of data and used no radiation equipment that has been used in other studies, such as fluoroscopy, to limit radiation exposure. In addition, the use of the virtual markers used in the study reported here has been shown to reduce the effects of marker motion artifact. Each dog served as its own untaped control, making any differences in joint motion a result of kinesiology tape application consistent.
In our original hypothesis, we believed that dogs would have altered tarsal joint movement, and we also believed that this effect would be less as the dogs became accustomed to wearing the tape. That was the logic behind repeated evaluation over 2 h or longer. However, because there were no immediate differences in joint motion right after tape application, along with difficulties in maintaining tape in position, we were unable to evaluate the dogs longer than 2 h after tape application.
To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the effect of kinesiology tape on gait characteristics in normal dogs. Our study of the effects of kinesiology tape on dogs is important to further understand any impacts on clinical patients. Kinesiology tape is increasingly used in veterinary practice, likely because of its impact on human sports medicine. Systematic scientific studies are warranted to understand the true effectiveness of the tape. Future research to evaluate the use of kinesiology tape on other joints, such as the stifle, coxofemoral, and cubital joints, as well as the spinal column, is warranted in clinically normal dogs and dogs with various orthopedic or neurologic conditions.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, kinesiology tape applied to the dorsal canine tarsus had no significant effect on gait or the completion of selected exercises. The tape had no effect on measured kinematic or kinetic variables. The tape, as applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions, did not last beyond 2 h. The tape application protocol should be revisited if subjects are asked to perform rehabilitation exercises over a period of time. Additional studies evaluating tape application, tape longevity, and tape effects on other joints during motion are also warranted.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.L.M.; methodology, R.C.N., and D.L.M.; formal analysis, R.C.N.; investigation, R.C.N., L.M.S., N.H.M., K.J., and D.L.M.; data curation, R.C.N.; writing—original draft preparation, R.C.N.; writing—review and editing, R.C.N., L.M.S., N.H.M., K.J., and D.L.M.; supervision, D.L.M.; funding acquisition, D.L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the Veterinary Orthopedic Laboratory at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine and Acree Endowed Chair funds. All funding was internally sourced. Authors do not have any financial or personal relationships with Vicon or RockTape that influenced or provided bias to the background of the research.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the and approved by the Institutional Review Board of The University of Tennessee (protocol code 2766-0420).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all owners and their dogs involved in the study. Mike O’Neil of the University of Tennessee statistics department, Ann Viera, and the library team at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine for their aid in the literature search.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Banerjee, G.; Briggs, M.; Johnson, M.I. The Immediate Effects of Kinesiology Taping on Cutaneous Blood Flow in Healthy Humans under Resting Conditions: A Randomised Controlled Repeated-Measures Laboratory Study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Chan, M.C.E.; Wee, J.W.J.; Lim, M.H. Does Kinesiology Taping Improve the Early Postoperative Outcomes in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? A Randomized Controlled Study. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2017, 27, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kaltron, A.; Bar-Sela, S. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Kinesio Taping®—Fact or Fashion? Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2013, 49, 699–709. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lee, K.; Yi, C.; Lee, S. The Effects of Kinesiology Taping Therapy on Degenerative Knee Arthritis Patients’ Pain, Function and Joint Range of Motion. J. Phys. Ther. Sci. 2016, 28, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mao, H.Y.; Hu, M.T.; Yen, Y.Y.; Lan, S.J.; Lee, S. Da Kinesio Taping Relieves Pain and Improves Isokinetic Not Isometric Muscle Strength in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Lim, E.C.W.; Tay, M.G.X. Kinesio Taping in Musculoskeletal Pain and Disability That Lasts for More than 4 Weeks: Is It Time to Peel off the Tape and Throw It out with the Sweat? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Focused on Pain and Also Methods of Tape Application. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1558–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Montalvo, A.M.; Cara, E.L.; Myer, G.D. Effect of Kinesiology Taping on Pain in Individuals with Musculoskeletal Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Physician Sportsmed. 2014, 42, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Parreira, P.d.C.S.; Costa, L.d.C.M.; Junior, L.C.H.; Lopes, A.D.; Costa, L.O.P. Current Evidence Does Not Support the Use of Kinesio Taping in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review. J. Physiother. 2014, 60, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ericson, C.; Stenfeldt, P.; Hardeman, A.; Jacobson, I. The Effect of Kinesiotape on Flexion-extension of the Thoracolumbar Back in Horses at Trot. Animals 2020, 10, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Drouin, J.L.; Mcalpine, C.T.; Primak, K.A.; Kin, B.A.; Kissel, J.; Drouin, J. The Effects of Kinesiotape on Athletic-Based Performance Outcomes in Healthy, Active Individuals: A Literature Synthesis Private Practice. J. Can. Chiropr. Assoc. 2013, 57, 356–365. [Google Scholar]
  11. Csapo, R.; Alegre, L.M. Effects of Kinesio® Taping on Skeletal Muscle Strength-A Meta-Analysis of Current Evidence. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2015, 18, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. de Freitas, F.S.; Brown, L.E.; Gomes, W.A.; Behm, D.G.; Marchetti, P.H. No Effect of Kinesiology Tape on Passive Tension, Strength or Quadriceps Muscle Activation or during Maximal Voluntary Isometric Contraction in Resistance Trained Men. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2018, 13, 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Farquharson, C.; Greig, M. Kinesiology Tape Mediates Soccer-Simulated and Local Peroneal Fatigue in Soccer Players. Res. Sports Med. 2017, 25, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Konishi, Y. Tactile Stimulation with Kinesiology Tape Alleviates Muscle Weakness Attributable to Attenuation of Ia Afferents. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lau, K.K.L.; Cheng, K.C.C. Effectiveness of Taping on Functional Performance in Elite Athletes: A Systematic Review. J. Biomech. 2019, 90, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fong, S.S.M.; Tam, Y.T.; Macfarlane, D.J.; Ng, S.S.M.; Bae, Y.H.; Chan, E.W.Y.; Guo, X. Core Muscle Activity during TRX Suspension Exercises with and without Kinesiology Taping in Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: Implications for Rehabilitation. Evid.-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2015, 2015, 910168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Poon, K.Y.; Li, S.M.; Roper, M.G.; Wong, M.K.M.; Wong, O.; Cheung, R.T.H. Kinesiology Tape Does Not Facilitate Muscle Performance: A Deceptive Controlled Trial. Man. Ther. 2015, 20, 130–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Nunes, G.S.; Vargas, V.Z.; Wageck, B.; dos Santos Hauphental, D.P.; da Luz, C.M.; de Noronha, M. Kinesio Taping Does Not Decrease Swelling in Acute, Lateral Ankle Sprain of Athletes: A Randomised Trial. J. Physiother. 2015, 61, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gabriel, E.H.; Sibert, N.C.; Powden, C.J. Kinesiology Therapeutic Taping Does Not Reduce Swelling Caused by an Acute Ankle Sprain: A Critically Appraised Topic. J. Sport Rehabil. 2022, 31, 630–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alexander, J.; Hobbs, S.J.; May, K.; Northrop, A.; Brigden, C.; Selfe, J. Postural Characteristics of Female Dressage Riders Using 3D Motion Analysis and the Effects of an Athletic Taping Technique: A Randomised Control Trial. Phys. Ther. Sport 2015, 16, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Molle, S. Kinesio Taping Fundalmentals for the Equine Athlete. Vet. Clin. Equine 2016, 32, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Ramón, T.; Prades, M.; Armengou, L.; Lanovaz, J.L.; Mullineaux, D.R.; Clayton, H.M. Effects of Athletic Taping of the Fetlock on Distal Limb Mechanics. Equine Vet. J. 2004, 36, 764–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zellner, A.; Bockstahler, B.; Peham, C. The Effects of Kinesio Taping on the Trajectory of the Forelimb and the Muscle Activity of the Musculus Brachiocephalicus and the Musculus Extensor Carpi Radialis in Horses. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Biau, S.; Burgaud, I. Application of Kinesiology Taping to Equine Abdominal Musculature in a Tension Frame for Muscle Facilitation Increases Longitudinal Activity at the Trot. Equine Vet. J. 2022, 54, 973–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Fu, Y.C.; Torres, B.T.; Budsberg, S.C. Evaluation of a Three-Dimensional Kinematic Model for Canine Gait Analysis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 2010, 71, 1118–1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Torres, B.T.; Fu, Y.C.; Sandberg, G.S.; Budsberg, S.C. Pelvic Limb Kinematics in the Dog with and without a Stifle Orthosis. Vet. Surg. 2017, 46, 642–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sandberg, G.S.; Torres, B.T.; Budsberg, S.C. Review of Kinematic Analysis in Dogs. Vet. Surg. 2020, 49, 1088–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Torres, B.T.; Gilbert, P.J.; Reynolds, L.R.; Fu, Y.C.; Navik, J.A.; Sornborger, A.; Budsberg, S.C. The Effect of Examiner Variability on Multiple Canine Stifle Kinematic Gait Collections in a 3-Dimensional Model. Vet. Surg. 2015, 44, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Torres, B.T.; Punke, J.P.; Fu, Y.C.; Navik, J.A.; Speas, A.L.; Sornborger, A.; Budsberg, S.C. Comparison of Canine Stifle Kinematic Data Collected with Three Different Targeting Models. Vet. Surg. 2010, 39, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alam, S.; Malhotra, D.; Munjal, J.; Chachra, A. Immediate Effect of Kinesio Taping on Shoulder Muscle Strength and Range of Motion in Healthy Individuals: A Randomised Trial. Hong Kong Physiother. J. 2015, 33, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Angelopoulos, P.; Mylonas, K.; Tsepis, E.; Billis, E.; Vaitsis, N.; Fousekis, K. The Effects of Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization, Tissue Flossing, and Kinesiology Taping on Shoulder Functional Capacities in Amateur Athletes. J. Sport Rehabil. 2021, 30, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Altaş, E.U.; Günay Uçurum, S.; Ozer Kaya, D. Acute Effect of Kinesiology Taping on Muscle Strength, Tissue Temperature, Balance, and Mobility in Female Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Somatosens. Mot. Res. 2021, 38, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cavaleri, R.; Thapa, T.; Beckenkamp, P.R.; Chipchase, L.S. The Influence of Kinesiology Tape Colour on Performance and Corticomotor Activity in Healthy Adults: A Randomised Crossover Controlled Trial. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil. 2018, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cai, C.; Au, I.P.H.; An, W.; Cheung, R.T.H. Facilitatory and Inhibitory Effects of Kinesio Tape: Fact or Fad? J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2016, 19, 109–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Halski, T.; Dymarek, R.; Ptaszkowski, K.; Słupska, L.; Rajfur, K.; Rajfur, J.; Pasternok, M.; Smykla, A.; Taradaj, J. Kinesiology Taping Does Not Modify Electromyographic Activity or Muscle Flexibility of Quadriceps Femoris Muscle: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study in Healthy Volleyball Players. Med. Sci. Monit. 2015, 21, 2232–2239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hosp, S.; Folie, R.; Csapo, R.; Hasler, M.; Nachbauer, W. Eccentric Exercise, Kinesiology Tape, and Balance in Healthy Men. J. Athl. Train. 2017, 52, 636–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hosp, S.; Csapo, R.; Heinrich, D.; Hasler, M.; Nachbauer, W. Does Kinesiology Tape Counter Exercise-Related Impairments of Balance in the Elderly? Gait Posture 2018, 62, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hosp, S.; Bottoni, G.; Heinrich, D.; Kofler, P.; Hasler, M.; Nachbauer, W. A Pilot Study of the Effect of Kinesiology Tape on Knee Proprioception after Physical Activity in Healthy Women. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2015, 18, 709–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Blein-Ibáñez, Á.; Molina-Rueda, F.; Bebea-Zamorano, F.N.; López-Román, A.; Navarro-López, V.; Alguacil-Diego, I.M. Kinesiology Tape versus Non-Standardized Tape in the Treatment of Balance in Non-Operated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Somatosens. Mot. Res. 2023, 41, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rogers, M.E.; Jimoh, J.M.; Zhang, Q.; Patterson, J.A.; Bomgardner, R.; Rogers, N.L. Effects of Kinesiology Tape on Balance; Proc of American College of Sports Medicine: Boston, MA, USA, 2016; p. 142. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bailey, D.; Firth, P. Does Kinesiology Taping of the Ankles Affect Proprioceptive Control in Professional Football (Soccer) Players? Phys. Ther. Sport 2017, 25, 94–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Park, J.S.; Yoon, T.; Lee, S.H.; Hwang, N.K.; Lee, J.H.; Jung, Y.J.; Lee, G. Immediate Effects of Kinesiology Tape on the Pain and Gait Function in Older Adults with Knee Osteoarthritis. Medicine 2019, 98, e17880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Lopes, M.; Torres, R.; Romão, D.; Dias, M.; Valério, S.; Espejo-Antúnez, L.; Costa, R.; Ribeiro, F. Kinesiology Tape Increases Muscle Tone, Stiffness, and Elasticity: Effects of the Direction of Tape Application. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther. 2022, 30, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Magalhães, I.; Bottaro, M.; Mezzarane, R.A.; Neto, F.R.; Rodrigues, B.A.; Ferreira-Júnior, J.B.; Carregaro, R.L. Kinesiotaping Enhances the Rate of Force Development but Not the Neuromuscular Efficiency of Physically Active Young Men. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. 2016, 28, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Naugle, K.E.; Hackett, J.; Aqeel, D.; Naugle, K.M. Effect of Different Kinesio Tape Tensions on Experimentally-Induced Thermal and Muscle Pain in Healthy Adults. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0259433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Choi, I.R.; Lee, J.H. Effect of Kinesiology Tape Application Direction on Quadriceps Strength. Medicine 2018, 97, e11038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Choi, I.R.; Lee, J.H. Effects of the Direction of Kinesiology Tape Application on the Delayed Onset of Quadriceps Muscle Fatigue in Athletes. Isokinet. Exerc. Sci. 2019, 27, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dolphin, M.; Brooks, G.; Calancie, B.; Rufa, A. Does the Direction of Kinesiology Tape Application Influence Muscle Activation in Asymptomatic Individuals? Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2021, 16, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Matheus, J.P.C.; Zille, R.R.; Gomide Matheus, L.B.; Lemos, T.V.; Carregaro, R.L.; Shimano, A.C. Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of Therapeutic Elastic Tapes Used in Sports and Clinical Practice. Phys. Ther. Sport 2017, 24, 74–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Selva, F.; Pardo, A.; Aguado, X.; Montava, I.; Gil-Santos, L.; Barrios, C. A Study of Reproducibility of Kinesiology Tape Applications: Review, Reliability and Validity. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2019, 20, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tunakova, V.; Tunak, M.; Mullerova, J.; Kolinova, M.; Bittner, V. Material, Structure, Chosen Mechanical and Comfort Properties of Kinesiology Tape. J. Text. Inst. 2017, 108, 2132–2146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vetsci 12 00439 g001
Figure 1. Anatomic (calibration) marker set (left) and tracking marker set (right).
Figure 1. Anatomic (calibration) marker set (left) and tracking marker set (right).
Vetsci 12 00439 g001
Vetsci 12 00439 g002
Figure 2. Rigid cluster design using a 3D-printed curved board. Each cluster was arranged in a rhomboid shape with an approximate distance of 2.5 cm separating each marker from the center of the sphere. Markers were arranged in a non-colinear fashion.
Figure 2. Rigid cluster design using a 3D-printed curved board. Each cluster was arranged in a rhomboid shape with an approximate distance of 2.5 cm separating each marker from the center of the sphere. Markers were arranged in a non-colinear fashion.
Vetsci 12 00439 g002
Vetsci 12 00439 g003
Figure 3. Instrumented dog with kinesiology tape applied.
Figure 3. Instrumented dog with kinesiology tape applied.
Vetsci 12 00439 g003
Vetsci 12 00439 g004
Figure 4. Kinesiology tape failure over the tarsocrural joints.
Figure 4. Kinesiology tape failure over the tarsocrural joints.
Vetsci 12 00439 g004
Vetsci 12 00439 g005
Figure 5. Additional tape added perpendicular to the original tape to hold it in place. Each subject required this modification by the 2-h test mark or earlier.
Figure 5. Additional tape added perpendicular to the original tape to hold it in place. Each subject required this modification by the 2-h test mark or earlier.
Vetsci 12 00439 g005
Vetsci 12 00439 g006
Figure 6. Stifle flexion at a walk, trot, and stepping over cavaletti rails before and after kinesiology tape application. Flexion was significantly greater with stepping over cavaletti compared with walking and trotting, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application (* indicates significance between walking vs. cavaletti and trotting vs. cavaletti).
Figure 6. Stifle flexion at a walk, trot, and stepping over cavaletti rails before and after kinesiology tape application. Flexion was significantly greater with stepping over cavaletti compared with walking and trotting, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application (* indicates significance between walking vs. cavaletti and trotting vs. cavaletti).
Vetsci 12 00439 g006
Vetsci 12 00439 g007
Figure 7. Tarsal flexion at a walk, trot, and stepping over cavaletti rails before and after kinesiology tape application. Flexion was significantly greater for stepping over cavaletti rails compared with walking and trotting, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application (* indicates significance between walking vs. cavaletti and trotting vs. cavaletti).
Figure 7. Tarsal flexion at a walk, trot, and stepping over cavaletti rails before and after kinesiology tape application. Flexion was significantly greater for stepping over cavaletti rails compared with walking and trotting, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application (* indicates significance between walking vs. cavaletti and trotting vs. cavaletti).
Vetsci 12 00439 g007
Vetsci 12 00439 g008
Figure 8. Peak vertical force of dogs walking and trotting before and after kinesiology tape application. Peak vertical force was significantly greater with trotting vs walking, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application.
Figure 8. Peak vertical force of dogs walking and trotting before and after kinesiology tape application. Peak vertical force was significantly greater with trotting vs walking, but there were no differences with kinesiology tape application.
Vetsci 12 00439 g008
Table 1. List of anatomic markers, ** indicates markers that were removed after kinematic calibration. The greater trochanter was shared between the pelvis and femur segments for calibration but was only used for the pelvis during data acquisition (tracking).
Table 1. List of anatomic markers, ** indicates markers that were removed after kinematic calibration. The greater trochanter was shared between the pelvis and femur segments for calibration but was only used for the pelvis during data acquisition (tracking).
Pelvic Limb
Segments		Marker Location
(Right and Left Limb)
PelvisIliac wing
Ischium
FemurGreater trochanter
Lateral epicondyle **
Medial epicondyle **
TibiaFibular head **
Proximal tibial crest **
Distal tibial crest **
Lateral malleolus **
Medial malleolus **
FootPoint of calcaneus
Metatarsophalangeal joint 2
Metatarsophalangeal joint 5
Proximal tarsometatarsal joint
Distal tarsometatarsal joint
Cluster Markers (4 each)Femoral cluster
Tibial cluster
Table 2. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of tarsal kinematic measurements.
Table 2. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of tarsal kinematic measurements.
Tarsus Kinematic Variables (p Values)
ComparisonAngular AccelerationAngular VelocityMaximum FlexionMinimum Flexion
Affected vs. Unaffected Leg0.50420.54180.69460.7511
Exercises0.00040.00010.1554<0.0001
Leg vs. Exercises0.79550.47570.31180.4251
Time0.75090.94520.99600.3644
Leg vs. Time0.98480.90410.56990.8166
Exercises vs. Time0.08610.36840.32580.0596
Leg vs. Exercises vs. Time0.26710.51270.87650.9506
Table 3. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of stifle kinematic measurements.
Table 3. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of stifle kinematic measurements.
Stifle Kinematic Variables (p Values)
ComparisonAngular AccelerationAngular VelocityMaximum FlexionMinimum Flexion
Affected vs. Unaffected Leg0.26130.13330.65810.9445
Exercises<0.0001<0.00010.0885<0.0001
Leg vs. Exercises0.38070.13680.72620.9023
Time0.31940.25210.96750.3826
Leg vs. Time0.66370.06650.07470.8477
Exercises vs. Time0.0270.55490.26930.3152
Leg vs. Exercises vs. Time0.20320.5340.14650.2343
Table 4. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of ground-reaction force variables.
Table 4. Summary of three-way repeated measures ANOVA of ground-reaction force variables.
Kinetic Variables (p Values)
ComparisonPeak Vertical Force (ZPeak)Propulsion (YAPeak)Braking (YBPeak)
Affected vs. Unaffected Leg0.78380.54180.4610
Exercises<0.00010.00020.2631
Leg × Exercises0.83940.97060.9144
Time0.71320.21270.3422
Leg vs. Time0.40630.31100.8742
Exercises × Time0.05140.52810.9687
Leg × Exercises × Time0.99150.77420.2417
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Noel, R.C.; Shaw, L.M.; Millis, N.H.; Janas, K.; Millis, D.L. Kinesiology Taping Does Not Affect Tarsal Joint Motion During Selected Exercises in Dogs. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050439

AMA Style

Noel RC, Shaw LM, Millis NH, Janas K, Millis DL. Kinesiology Taping Does Not Affect Tarsal Joint Motion During Selected Exercises in Dogs. Veterinary Sciences. 2025; 12(5):439. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050439

Chicago/Turabian Style

Noel, Rebecca C., Leann M. Shaw, Nicholas H. Millis, Krysta Janas, and Darryl L. Millis. 2025. "Kinesiology Taping Does Not Affect Tarsal Joint Motion During Selected Exercises in Dogs" Veterinary Sciences 12, no. 5: 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050439

APA Style

Noel, R. C., Shaw, L. M., Millis, N. H., Janas, K., & Millis, D. L. (2025). Kinesiology Taping Does Not Affect Tarsal Joint Motion During Selected Exercises in Dogs. Veterinary Sciences, 12(5), 439. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci12050439

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop