## 4 Discussion
Less change in the knee joint reposition angle error and sound dynamic balance is imperative to reduce risk factors for sports injury in the lower limbs. In this study, we provided the first data verifying that FB intervention on the knee joint may not result in proprioception changes at all time points; thus, the knee joint is not impeded. Proprioception provides expedient feedback on joint stability; as long as joint proprioception is provoked, it is a crucial factor that can increase susceptibility to knee sprain joint injury. The proprioceptive performance depends on the ability of the central nervous system to use other sensory inputs (e.g., the muscles, ligaments, tendons, joint capsules, and skin), theoretically, which could be trained through long-term learning and neuoplasticity mechanisms [44; 45]. Nevertheless, nuanced interpretation of this data is paramount. We employed open kinetic chain (OKC), not closed kinetic chain (CKC), measurement in participants. Further comparison between OKC and CKC measurements is thus suggested. Regarding dynamic balance, our study demonstrated that FB intervention resulted in significant improvement with a medium-to-large effect in the YBT assessment in immediate postintervention (percentage change: 4.43, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.57) and 20 min postintervention (percentage change: 5.77, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.86). Two potential reasons were postulated: (1) soft tissues were relaxed and muscle elasticity increased, thereby reducing joint tightness and increasing the performance of dynamic balance; consistent with the literature, this outcome indicates that the increased ROM is positively correlated with dynamic balance determined by the YBT [46]; and (2) the improvements in dynamic balance and isokinetic quadriceps strength are related [24]. Because the quadriceps muscle acts as a dynamic stabilizer of the knee joint, it aids in dynamic balance. We also determined that the participants exhibited significant improvement in quadriceps muscle force output after FB intervention both immediately (ES = 1.94) and 20 min later (ES = 1.8). This study has some limitations. First, no consensus exists on the optimal FB use technique [17; 12]. Second, the pressure on the target tissue after flossing was not measured since an athletic trainer or physiotherapist cannot wrap the FB with exactly the same pressure on the court. Thus, we used the Smart Handle Pro ZSH-ZP to control the tension of the stretched FB for the purpose of a more practical approach. [PERSON]'s research demonstrated that different stretched tensions of the FB resulted in distinct outcomes [37], and the band was stretched to a point where the estimated force had already been assessed; therefore, the average band tension was fixed at 40 N in this study [29]. However, we did not further investigate whether lower or higher band stretching, varying force, or pressure on the target tissue may lead to varying results [4; 47]. Third, the percentage of blood restriction was not assessed by a laser Doppler flowmeter. Different applied blood restrictions of the body segment on the target muscle during FB intervention may have generated varied outcomes. Fourth, this study was performed with only healthy individuals. The generalizability of the results to all populations (e.g., participants with musculoskeletal disorders, recreational, or elite athletes) is relatively low. Fifth, muscle activity (e.g., electromyography) was not measured. Sixth, further investigation may also focus on band use in different joints and soft tissues. Lastly, our study compared FB and EB (ie., sham control condition), but the same testing protocol could have been repeated without any wrapping as the control condition (i.e., untreated condition). In addition, the compression materials are different. The EB is a made of a mix of cotton and elastic yarn [19]. FB is a made of latex rubber.