# Comparison of the Effects of Elastic and Rigid Taping on Gross Motor Function, Balance, and Functional Capacity in Children with Hemiplegic Cerebral Palsy: A Randomized, Single-Blinded Trial

## TL;DR

This study found that both elastic and rigid taping improved motor skills and balance in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy, with no clear difference between the two methods.

## Contribution

This is the first trial comparing Kinesio taping and rigid taping in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.

## Key findings

- Both Kinesio taping and rigid taping significantly improved motor function, balance, and walking ability.
- Nonparametric analysis suggested slightly greater improvements with Kinesio taping, but no significant inter-group differences were found after adjusting for baseline scores.
- Both taping methods are similarly effective as adjuncts to physiotherapy for children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.

## Abstract

What are the main findings?
This is the first trial comparing Kinesio taping and rigid taping in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.Both taping types improved motor function, walking, balance, and functional capacity.

This is the first trial comparing Kinesio taping and rigid taping in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy.

Both taping types improved motor function, walking, balance, and functional capacity.

What is the implication of the main finding?
Taping can be used as an effective adjunct in pediatric neurorehabilitation to enhance functional outcomes.

Taping can be used as an effective adjunct in pediatric neurorehabilitation to enhance functional outcomes.

Background/Objectives: This randomized, single-blinded trial compared the effects of Kinesio taping (KT) and rigid taping (RT) on gross motor function, balance, and functional capacity in children with hemiplegic cerebral palsy (HCP). Methods: Fifty-two children (aged 7–16) were assessed using the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), Pediatric Berg Balance Scale (PBBS), Time-Up-and-Go (TUG), and 2-Minute Walk Test (2-MWT). Results: Both KT and RT produced significant intra-group improvements in GMFM, PBBS, TUG, and 2-MWT scores (p ≤ 0.001). Although nonparametric analysis suggested greater changes for KT in TUG and 2-MWT (p < 0.001; p = 0.036), no significant inter-group differences were found when baseline scores were adjusted using the General Linear Model (GLM) (2-MWT: p = 0.29; TUG: p = 0.087). Conclusions: KT and RT are similarly effective adjuncts to physiotherapy, improving gross motor function, balance, and functional capacity in children with HCP. Therefore, the choice between KT and RT may be guided by clinical preference, child tolerance, and therapeutic goals rather than superiority of effect.