Effect of Different Kinesio Taping Interventions on the Local Thresholds of Current Perception and Pressure Pain in Healthy Adults

Abstract

Objective: Previous studies made controversial claims about the alleged effects of Kinesio taping (KT) on pain relief. To date, the mechanism by which KT relieves pain remains unclear. Moreover, pain evaluation lacks objective and quantitative parameters. This study compared the acute effects of different KT interventions on the local thresholds of pressure pain and current perception in healthy adults to determine the potential mechanisms by which KT relieves pain.

Methods: Thirty healthy female subjects randomly received four KT interventions, namely, no taping (NT), placebo taping (PT), Y strips of KT (KY), and fan strips of KT (KF), on the waist. Current perception threshold (CPT), pressure pain threshold (PPT), soft tissue hardness, and the visual analog scale (VAS) scores of the subjects' perceived pain were immediately measured after taping. Repeated-measures ANOVA was performed to determine significant differences in these parameters among the four interventions.

Results: Significant differences in CPT values among the interventions were observed at the frequency of 5 Hz (F = 3.499, p = 0.019, η _p ² = 0.111). Post hoc analysis revealed that CPT was significantly higher for KF than for NT (p = 0.008, 95% CI = 1.390-11.990). Significant differences in PPT values (F = 4.352, p = 0.012, η _p ² = 0.130) and soft tissue hardness (F = 2.957, p = 0.049, η _p ² = 0.093) were observed among the different taping conditions. Post hoc analysis revealed that PPT was significantly higher for KF than for PT (p = 0.011, 95% CI = 0.071-0.749), and soft tissue hardness was significantly higher for KF than for NT (p = 0.010, 95% CI = 0.461-4.586) and KY (p = 0.040, 95% CI = 0.059-3.800). No significant differences in self-perceived pain among the interventions were observed.

Conclusion: The healthy adult females had higher PPT values, lower soft tissue hardness, and higher CPT values at 5 Hz under KF intervention applied on the waist than those under the other taping interventions. Moreover, the different taping conditions had no significant differences in terms of VAS of perceived pain. These results provide guidance for the application of KT on pain management.

Keywords: Kinesio taping; current perception threshold; erector spinae; pressure pain threshold; taping methods.

FIGURE 1

Different taping methods with the CPT test. (A) No taping, (B) placebo taping, (C) Y-strip of Kinesio taping, and (D) fan-strip of Kinesio taping.

FIGURE 2

Comparison of different taping methods in terms of CPT, PPT, Hardness, and VAS scores ($\overline{x}$ ± s). (A) Different taping methods in terms of CPT with 2000 Hz; (B) different taping methods in terms of CPT with 250 Hz; (C) different taping methods in terms of CPT with 5 Hz; (D) different taping methods in terms of PPT; (E) different taping methods in terms of soft tissue hardness; and (F) different taping methods in terms of visual analogue scores. *Significant difference between groups, p < 0.05.