Blood Flow Restriction Training for the Shoulder: A Case for Proximal Benefit

Effects of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Training on Rotator Cuff Strength and Hypertrophy: Case Series

Background

The rotator cuff (RC) plays a pivotal role in the performance and health of the shoulder and upper extremity. Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) is a modality to improve strength and muscle hypertrophy with even low-load training in healthy and injured individuals. There is minimal evidence examining its effect proximal to the occluded area, and particularly on the RC.

Hypothesis & Purpose

The purpose of this case series is to explore the effects of low-load BFRT on RC strength, hypertrophy, and tendon thickness in asymptomatic individuals.

Study Design

Case series.

Methods

Fourteen participants with asymptomatic, untrained shoulders were recruited to participate. They performed an eight-week low-load shoulder exercise regimen where BFR was applied to the dominant arm only during exercise. The dependent variables were maximal isometric strength of the shoulder external rotators(ER) and elevators (in the scapular plane in full can position) (FC) measured via handheld dynamometry, cross sectional area (CSA) of the supraspinatus and infraspinatus muscles, and supraspinatus tendon thickness measured via ultrasound imaging (US). Mean changes within and between arms were compared after training using paired t-tests. Cohen's d was used to determine effect sizes.

Results

All participants were able to complete the BFRT regimen without adverse effects. Mean strength and CSA increased for all variables in both arms, however this increase was only significant (p\<0.01) for FC strength bilaterally and CSA for the supraspinatus and infraspinatus on the BFRT side. The effect sizes for increased supraspinatus and infraspinatus CSA on the BFRT side were 0.40 (9.8% increase) and 0.46 (11.7% increase) respectively. There were no significant differences when comparing the mean changes of the BFRT side to the non-BFRT side for strength or muscle CSA. There were no significant changes to supraspinatus tendon thickness.

Conclusion

These results suggest variability in response of the RC musculature to low-load BFRT in asymptomatic individuals. The potential for a confounding systemic response in the study design makes determining whether low-load BFRT is more beneficial than low-load non-BFRT difficult. The hypertrophy seen on the BFRT side warrants further study.

Level of Evidence

4.

Assessment of Self-report, Palpation, and Surface Electromyography Dataset During Isometric Muscle Contraction

Measuring muscle fatigue involves assessing various components within the motor system. While subjective and sensor-based measures have been proposed, a comprehensive comparison of these assessment measures is currently lacking. This study aims to bridge this gap by utilizing three commonly used measures: participant self-reported perceived muscle fatigue scores, a sports physiotherapist's manual palpation-based muscle tightness scores, and surface electromyography sensors. Compensatory muscle fatigue occurs when one muscle group becomes fatigued, leading to the involvement and subsequent fatigue of other muscles as they compensate for the workload. The evaluation of compensatory muscle fatigue focuses on nine different upper body muscles selected by the sports physiotherapist. With a cohort of 30 male subjects, this study provides a valuable dataset for researchers and healthcare practitioners in sports science, rehabilitation, and human performance. It enables the exploration and comparison of diverse methods for evaluating different muscles in isometric contraction.

Effects of High-Load Bench Press Training with Different Blood Flow Restriction Pressurization Strategies on the Degree of Muscle Activation in the Upper Limbs of Bodybuilders

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different pressurization modes during high-load bench press training on muscle activation and subjective fatigue in bodybuilders. Methods: Ten bodybuilders participated in a randomized, self-controlled crossover experimental design, performing bench press training under three different pressurization modes: T1 (low pressure, high resistance), T2 (high pressure, high resistance), and C (non-pressurized conventional). Surface EMG signals were recorded from the pectoralis major, deltoid, and triceps muscles using a Delsys Trigno wireless surface EMG during bench presses. Subjective fatigue was assessed immediately after the training session. Results: (1) Pectoralis major muscle: The muscle activation degree of the T1 group was significantly higher than that of the blank control group during the bench press (p < 0.05). The muscle activation degree of the T2 group was significantly higher than that of the C group during the bench press (p < 0.05). In addition, the muscle activation degree of the T2 group was significantly higher than that of the T1 group during the first group bench press (p < 0.05). (2) Deltoid muscle: The muscle activation degree of the T2 group during the third group bench press was significantly lower than the index values of the first two groups (p < 0.05). The muscle activation degree in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the C group (p < 0.05). The degree of muscle activation in the T2 group was significantly higher than that in the T1 group during the first bench press (p < 0.05). (3) Triceps: The muscle activation degree of the T1 group was significantly higher than the index value of the third group during the second group bench press (p < 0.05), while the muscle activation degree of the T2 group was significantly lower than the index value of the first two groups during the third group bench press (p < 0.05). The degree of muscle activation in all experimental groups was significantly higher than that in group C (p < 0.05). (5) RPE index values in all groups were significantly increased (p < 0.05). The RPE value of the T1 group was significantly higher than that of the C group after bench press (p < 0.05). The RPE value of the T1 group was significantly higher than that of the C group after bench press (p < 0.05). In the third group, the RPE value of the T1 group was significantly higher than that of the C and T2 groups (p = 0.002) (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The activation of the pectoralis major, triceps brachii, and deltoid muscles is significantly increased by high-intensity bench press training with either continuous or intermittent pressurization. However, continuous pressurization results in a higher level of perceived fatigue. The training mode involving high pressure and high resistance without pressurization during sets but with 180 mmHg occlusion pressure and pressurization during rest intervals yields the most pronounced overall effect on muscle activation.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy: A Randomized, Assessor-Blinded, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of low-load blood flow restriction (BFR) training on shoulder muscle thickness, rotator cuff (RC) strength, and shoulder symptoms in patients with RC tendinopathy.

DESIGN

A randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTINGS

Physiotherapy clinic at a university.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight patients were randomized into an 8-week (2 times/week) shoulder rehabilitation, that is, BFR or non-BFR group.

INTERVENTIONS

BFR training.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) RC, deltoid, scapula retractor, and biceps muscle thicknesses and shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) strengths. (2) Shoulder pain/function.

RESULTS

The BFR group had a greater increase in biceps muscle thickness ( P = 0.002) and shoulder IR strength at 60 degrees/s ( P = 0.040) than the non-BFR group. No differences between the 2 groups were observed in other measurements. Significant improvements in supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and scapula retractor muscle thicknesses and in shoulder ER and IR strengths were observed over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05). Also, shoulder pain decreased and shoulder function increased over time in both the groups (all P < 0 .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-load BFR training resulted in a greater increase in biceps thickness and shoulder IR strength compared with the non-BFR group in patients with RC tendinopathy. However, there was no superiority of either exercise training regarding the RC, scapula retractor, deltoid muscle thicknesses, or improvements in shoulder ER strength and shoulder pain/function.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov named Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients with Shoulder Pain and the registration number is NCT04333784.

Feasibility of Low-Load Resistance Training Using Blood Flow Restriction for People With Advanced Multiple Sclerosis: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) for people with advanced disability due to multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, 14 participants with MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score = 6.0 to 7.0; mean age = 55.4 [SD = 6.2] years; 71% women) were asked to perform 3 lower extremity resistance exercises (leg press, calf press, and hip abduction) bilaterally twice weekly for 8 weeks using BFR. Feasibility criteria were as follows: enrollment of 20 participants, ≥80% retention and adherence, ≥90% satisfaction, and no serious adverse events related to the intervention. Other outcomes included knee extensor, ankle plantar flexor, and hip abductor muscle strength, 30-Second Sit-to-Stand Test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed 25-Foot Walk Test, 12-Item MS Walking Scale, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Patient-Specific Functional Scale, and daily step count.

RESULTS

Sixteen participants consented, and 14 completed the intervention, with 93% adherence overall. All participants were satisfied with the intervention. A minor hip muscle strain was the only intervention-related adverse event. There were muscle strength improvements on the more-involved (16%-28%) and less-involved (12%-19%) sides. There were also changes in the 30-Second Sit-to-Stand Test (1.9 repetitions; 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.8), Berg Balance Scale (5.3 points; 95% CI = 3.2 to 7.4), Timed 25-Foot Walk Test (-3.3 seconds; 95% CI = -7.9 to 1.3), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (-8.8 points; 95% CI = -16.5 to -1.1), 12-Item MS Walking Scale (-3.6 points; 95% CI = -11.5 to 4.4), Patient-Specific Functional Scale (2.9 points; 95% CI = 1.9 to 3.8), and daily step count (333 steps; 95% CI = -191 to 857).

CONCLUSION

Low-load resistance training using BFR in people with MS and EDSS scores of 6.0 to 7.0 appears feasible, and subsequent investigation into its efficacy is warranted.

IMPACT

Although efficacy data are needed, combining BFR with low-load resistance training may be a viable alternative for people who have MS and who do not tolerate conventional moderate- to high-intensity training because of more severe symptoms, such as fatigue and weakness.

LAY SUMMARY

Low-load strength training with BFR was feasible in people who have advanced disability due to MS. Using BFR may provide an alternative for people with MS who do not tolerate higher intensity training due to more severe symptoms, such as fatigue and weakness.

BFR Training Improves Patients' Reported Outcomes, Strength, and Range of Motion After Casting for Colles' Fracture

PURPOSE

This study compared traditional rehabilitation as a treatment modality after plaster cast treatment of Colles' fracture with a combination of individualized blood flow restriction (BFR) and traditional rehabilitation.

METHODS

Twenty-eight participants were randomized into a BFR group and a non-BFR group after plaster cast treatment of Colles' fracture. The BFR group completed traditional rehabilitation with a medical grade tourniquet applied to the upper arm, and the non-BFR group underwent traditional rehabilitation only. Patients were followed up with radiographic outcomes (palmar tilt and radial inclination) to ensure the stability of the fracture. Clinical assessment of patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) score, grip strength, pinch strength, wrist range of motion (ROM), and muscle stiffness was conducted at cast removal and 6 wk after cast removal. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA determined significant interactions between time and group in the aforementioned variables. An independent-sample t -test assessed the differences in baseline variables and radiographic outcomes.

RESULTS

Significant interactions between time and group were noted for PRWE score ( F = 11.796, P = 0.002, η2p = 0.339), grip strength ( F = 5.445, P = 0.029, η2p = 0.191), and wrist ROM (ulnar deviation; F = 7.856, P = 0.010, η2p = 0.255). No significant interactions between time and group were found in measurements of pinch strength or wrist ROM (flexion, extension, radial deviation, pronation, supination). An independent-sample t -test showed no significant difference in baseline variables and radiographic outcomes between the groups before or after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that combining individualized BFR with traditional rehabilitation resulted in greater increases in PRWE score, grip strength, and wrist ROM (ulnar deviation) than traditional rehabilitation alone. Therefore, adding individualized BFR to traditional rehabilitation might be a better option for treatment for similar patients.

Blood Flow Restriction Training in Nonspecific Shoulder Pain: Study Protocol of a Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial

"Nonspecific shoulder pain" encompasses various non-traumatic musculoskeletal shoulder disorders, diverging from diagnostic terminologies that refer to precise tissue-oriented clinical diagnosis. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, involving partial arterial inflow and complete venous outflow restriction, has exhibited acute hypoalgesic effects primarily in healthy populations by increasing their pain thresholds. This study aims to examine whether a single BFR session with low-load exercises can alleviate pain perception among nonspecific shoulder pain patients. Conducted as a single-blind crossover randomised clinical trial, 48 adults (age range: 18 to 40) presenting with nonspecific shoulder pain will partake in two trial sessions. Random assignment will place participants into BFR or sham BFR groups and ask them to perform one exercise with BFR. Subsequently, participants will complete a shoulder girdle loading regimen comprising six exercises. The second session will involve participants switching treatment groups. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs), shoulder pain and disability via the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of shoulder external rotators, pain during active abduction, and peak pain during shoulder external rotation will be evaluated using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Immediate post-exercise assessments will include patient-perceived pain changes using the global rating of change scale (GROC) and participant-rated perceived exertion (RPE), employing a modified Borg's scale (Borg CR10) post-BFR or sham BFR exercise session. Each session will encompass three assessment periods, and a combination of mixed-effect models and descriptive statistics will underpin the analysis. This protocol was approved by Cyprus National Bioethics Committee (ΕΕΒΚ/2023/48), and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT05956288). Conclusion: The anticipated outcomes of this study illuminated the acute effects of BFR training on pain perception within the context of nonspecific shoulder pain, potentially advancing strategies for managing pain intensity using BFR techniques.

ADAPTations to low load blood flow restriction exercise versus conventional heavier load resistance exercise in UK military personnel with persistent knee pain: protocol for the ADAPT study, a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Muscle atrophy, muscle weakness and localised pain are commonly reported following musculoskeletal injury (MSKI). To mitigate this risk and prepare individuals to return to sport or physically demanding occupations, resistance training (RT) is considered a vital component of rehabilitation. However, to elicit adaptations in muscle strength, exercise guidelines recommend lifting loads ≥ 70% of an individual's one repetition maximum (1-RM). Unfortunately, individuals with persistent knee pain are often unable to tolerate such high loads and this may negatively impact the duration and extent of their recovery. Low load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) is an alternative RT technique that has demonstrated improvements in muscle strength, hypertrophy, and pain in the absence of high mechanical loading. However, the effectiveness of high-frequency LL-BFR in a residential rehabilitation environment remains unclear. This study will compare the efficacy of high frequency LL-BFR to 'conventional' heavier load resistance training (HL-RT) on measures of physical function and pain in adults with persistent knee pain.

METHODS

This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 150 UK service personnel (aged 18-55) admitted for a 3-week residential rehabilitation course with persistent knee pain. Participants will be randomised to receive: a) LL-BFR delivered twice daily at 20% 1-RM or b) HL-RT three-times per week at 70% 1-RM. Outcomes will be recorded at baseline (T1), course discharge (T2) and at three-months following course (T3). The primary outcome will be the lower extremity functional scale (LEFS) at T2. Secondary outcomes will include patient reported perceptions of pain, physical and occupational function and objective measures of muscle strength and neuromuscular performance. Additional biomechanical and physiological mechanisms underpinning both RT interventions will also be investigated as part of a nested mechanistic study.

DISCUSSION

LL-BFR is a rehabilitation modality that has the potential to induce positive clinical adaptations in the absence of high mechanical loads and therefore could be considered a treatment option for patients suffering significant functional deficits who are unable to tolerate heavy load RT. Consequently, results from this study will have a direct clinical application to healthcare service providers and patients involved in the rehabilitation of physically active adults suffering MSKI.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.org reference number, NCT05719922.

Optimal Blood Flow Restriction Occlusion Pressure for Shoulder Muscle Recruitment With Upper Extremity Exercise

BACKGROUND

As blood flow restriction (BFR) utilization continues to rise, it is crucial to define optimal parameters for use. Currently unknown are the effects of occlusion level during BFR on muscle activity in the proximal shoulder.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare electromyographic amplitude (EMGa) of shoulder musculature during exercise using limb occlusion percentages (LOPs). The authors hypothesized that EMGa would increase concurrently with occlusion.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

α Fifteen healthy adults were recruited and underwent 4 experimental sessions, performing 3 common rotator cuff exercises at low intensity (20% maximal strength) to failure in the following order: cable external rotation (ER), cable internal rotation (IR), and dumbbell scaption. Exercises were completed at a different occlusion pressure (0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% LOP- order randomized) applied at the proximal arm. EMGa was recorded from shoulder musculature proximal to the occlusion site and averaged across 5-repetition intervals and overall for the first 30 repetitions. An analysis of variance repeated on occlusion pressure followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test was used to compare EMGa, repetitions to fatigue, and ratings of discomfort (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10) between occlusion pressures. The type 1 error was set at α = .05 for all analyses.

RESULTS

Significant effects of the occlusion level on shoulder muscle EMGa were observed for all exercises (P < .05) with diminishing returns above 50% LOP (overall). For ER, elevations in EMGa were observed at ≥50% LOP for the anterior deltoid, middle deltoid, infraspinatus, and trapezius compared with 0% LOP (P < .05). For IR, elevations in EMGa were observed at ≥25% LOP for the anterior deltoid and trapezius compared with 0% LOP (P < .05). For the teres minor, a significant elevation in EMGa occurred at 75% LOP compared with 0%, 25%, and 50% LOP (P < .05). A decrease in EMGa was observed at ≥50% LOP compared with 0% LOP for the posterior deltoid (P < .05). For scaption, an increase in EMGa was observed at ≥25% LOP for the infraspinatus and teres minor muscles, at 75% LOP for the posterior deltoid, and at ≥50% LOP for the trapezius compared with 0% LOP (P < .05). Decreases in repetitions to failure relative to 0% LOP were observed at 75% LOP for ER (0%: 47 ± 5; 75%: 40 ± 2; P = .034), IR (0%: 82 ± 10; 75%: 64 ± 5; P = .017), and scaption (0%: 85 ± 9; 75%: 64 ± 6; P < .001). A significant linear increase in discomfort was observed for all exercises with increasing occlusion pressures (VAS: 0-10, 0% → 75% LOP; ER: 2.2 ± 0.4 → 7.2 ± 0.3; IR: 1.3 ± 0.2 → 6.1 ± 0.6; scaption: 1.3 ± 0.4 → 6.1 ± 0.4; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

There are several differences in muscle activation about the shoulder based on exercise and occlusion when utilizing BFR. Increasing the percentage of limb occlusion leads to heightened EMGa with diminished returns past 50% LOP when considering muscle activation, discomfort, and achievable exercise volume.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These findings may be used to refine upper extremity BFR guidelines.

Survey of blood flow restriction therapy for rehabilitation in Sports Medicine patients

Background

Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy has demonstrated benefits across a spectrum of musculoskeletal injuries, including improved strength, endurance, function, and reduction in pain perception. There is, however, no standardized application of BFR therapy among orthopaedic surgeons within the United States (US).

Hypothesis

The indication and protocol for BFR therapy vary significantly across providers in the US.

Methods

An online survey of 21 multiple-choice questions was sent to 3,281 surgeons listed on a large orthopaedic registry. A cross-sectional study was performed on all surgeons who successfully completed the questionnaire. Surgeons were queried on current or planned use of BFR, indications, contraindications, and peri-operative and non-operative management of sports-related injuries.

Results

Overall, 250 physicians completed the survey, with 149 (59.8%) reporting current BFR use and 75.2% initiating use in the last 1-5 years. Most protocols (78.8%) utilize the modality 2-3 times per week while 15.9% use it only once weekly. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation was the most reported indication for initiating BFR therapy (95.7%) along with medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (70.2%), multiligamentous knee reconstruction (68.8%), meniscus repair (62.4%), collateral ligament reconstruction (50.4%), Achilles tendon repairs (30.5%), and meniscectomy (27%). Only 36.5% reported using BFR after upper extremity procedures, such as distal biceps repair (19.7%), ulnar collateral ligament elbow reconstruction (17%), rotator cuff (16.8%), and shoulder labrum repair (15.3%). For non-operative injuries, 65.8% of surgeons utilized BFR. Of those not currently using BFR therapy, 33.3% intended to implement its use in the future.

Conclusion

BFR therapy has increased in popularity with most physicians implementing its use in the last 5 years. BFR was commonly utilized after ACLR.

Clinical relevance

BFR allows light-load resistance to simulate high-intensity resistance training. This study describes US orthopaedic surgeons' common practice patterns and patient populations that utilize BFR therapy.

The effects of upper body blood flow restriction training on muscles located proximal to the applied occlusive pressure: A systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Blood flow restriction combined with low load resistance training (LL-BFRT) is associated with increases in upper limb muscle strength and size. The effect of LL-BFRT on upper limb muscles located proximal to the BFR cuff application is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of LL-BFRT compared to low load, or high load resistance training (LL-RT, HL-RT) on musculature located proximal to cuff placement.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the PEDro scale. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model, or calculated mean differences (fixed-effect) where appropriate. We judged the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

The systematic literature searched yielded 346 articles, of which 9 studies were eligible. The evidence for all outcomes was of very low to low certainty. Across all comparisons, a significant increase in bench press and shoulder flexion strength was found in favor of LL-BFRT compared to LL-RT, and in shoulder lean mass and pectoralis major thickness in favor of the LL-BFRT compared to LL-RT and HL-RT, respectively. No significant differences were found between LL-BFRT and HL-RT in muscle strength.

CONCLUSION

With low certainty LL-BFRT appears to be equally effective to HL-RT for improving muscle strength in upper body muscles located proximal to the BFR stimulus in healthy adults. Furthermore, LL-BFRT may induce muscle size increase, but these adaptations are not superior to LL-RT or HL-RT.

The Effect of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy on Shoulder Function Following Shoulder Stabilization Surgery: A Case Series

Background

Traumatic shoulder instability is a common injury in athletes and military personnel. Surgical stabilization reduces recurrence, but athletes often return to sport before recovering upper extremity rotational strength and sport-specific abilities. Blood flow restriction (BFR) may stimulate muscle growth without the need for heavy resistance training post-surgically.

Hypothesis/Purpose

To observe changes in shoulder strength, self-reported function, upper extremity performance, and range of motion (ROM) in military cadets recovering from shoulder stabilization surgery who completed a standard rehabilitation program with six weeks of BFR training.

Study Design

Prospective case series.

Methods

Military cadets who underwent shoulder stabilization surgery completed six weeks of upper extremity BFR training, beginning post-op week six. Primary outcomes were shoulder isometric strength and patient-reported function assessed at 6-weeks, 12-weeks, and 6-months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included shoulder ROM assessed at each timepoint and the Closed Kinetic Chain Upper Extremity Stability Test (CKCUEST), the Upper Extremity Y-Balance Test (UQYBT), and the Unilateral Seated Shotput Test (USPT) assessed at the six-month follow-up.

Results

Twenty cadets performed an average 10.9 BFR training sessions over six weeks. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful increases in surgical extremity external rotation strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .049; 95% CI: .021, .077), abduction strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .079; 95% CI: .050, .108), and internal rotation strength (p < 0.001; mean difference, .060; CI: .028, .093) occurred from six to 12 weeks postoperatively. Statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements were reported on the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (p < 0.001; mean difference, 17.7; CI: 9.4, 25.9) and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (p < 0.001; mean difference, -31.1; CI: -44.2, -18.0) from six to 12 weeks postoperatively. Additionally, over 70 percent of participants met reference values on two to three performance tests at 6-months.

Conclusion

While the degree of improvement attributable to the addition of BFR is unknown, the clinically meaningful improvements in shoulder strength, self-reported function, and upper extremity performance warrant further exploration of BFR during upper extremity rehabilitation.

Level of Evidence

4, Case Series.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Preserves Lower Extremity Bone and Muscle Mass After ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Muscle atrophy is common after an injury to the knee and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Blood flow restriction therapy (BFR) combined with low-load resistance exercise may help mitigate muscle loss and improve the overall condition of the lower extremity (LE).

PURPOSE

To determine whether BFR decreases the loss of LE lean mass (LM), bone mass, and bone mineral density (BMD) while improving function compared with standard rehabilitation after ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 32 patients undergoing ACLR with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft were randomized into 2 groups (CONTROL: N = 15 [male = 7, female = 8; age = 24.1 ± 7.2 years; body mass index [BMI] = 26.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2] and BFR: N = 17 [male = 12, female = 5; age = 28.1 ± 7.4 years; BMI = 25.2 ± 2.8 kg/m2]) and performed 12 weeks of postsurgery rehabilitation with an average follow-up of 2.3 ± 1.0 years. Both groups performed the same rehabilitation protocol. During select exercises, the BFR group exercised under 80% arterial occlusion of the postoperative limb (Delfi tourniquet system). BMD, bone mass, and LM were measured using DEXA (iDXA, GE) at presurgery, week 6, and week 12 of rehabilitation. Functional measures were recorded at week 8 and week 12. Return to sport (RTS) was defined as the timepoint at which ACLR-specific objective functional testing was passed at physical therapy. A group-by-time analysis of covariance followed by a Tukey's post hoc test were used to detect within- and between-group changes. Type I error; α = 0.05.

RESULTS

Compared with presurgery, only the CONTROL group experienced decreases in LE-LM at week 6 (-0.61 ± 0.19 kg, -6.64 ± 1.86%; P < 0.01) and week 12 (-0.39 ± 0.15 kg, -4.67 ± 1.58%; P = 0.01) of rehabilitation. LE bone mass was decreased only in the CONTROL group at week 6 (-12.87 ± 3.02 g, -2.11 ± 0.47%; P < 0.01) and week 12 (-16.95 ± 4.32 g,-2.58 ± 0.64%; P < 0.01). Overall, loss of site-specific BMD was greater in the CONTROL group (P < 0.05). Only the CONTROL group experienced reductions in proximal tibia (-8.00 ± 1.10%; P < 0.01) and proximal fibula (-15.0±2.50%,P < 0.01) at week 12 compared with presurgery measures. There were no complications. Functional measures were similar between groups. RTS time was reduced in the BFR group (6.4 ± 0.3 months) compared with the CONTROL group (8.3 ± 0.5 months; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

After ACLR, BFR may decrease muscle and bone loss for up to 12 weeks postoperatively and may improve time to RTS with functional outcomes comparable with those of standard rehabilitation.

Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Training in Tendon Rehabilitation: A Scoping Review on Intervention Parameters, Physiological Effects, and Outcomes

Objective

To identify current evidence on blood flow restriction training (BFRT) in tendon injuries and healthy tendons, evaluating physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters, and outcomes.

Methods

This scoping review was reported in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, EMBase, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane library (Controlled trials, Systematic reviews), and five trial registries. Two independent reviewers screened studies at title/abstract and full text. Following screening, data was extracted and charted, and presented as figures and tables alongside a narrative synthesis. Any study design conducted on adults, investigating the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons or tendon pathology were included. Data were extracted on physiological tendon effects, intervention parameters and outcomes with BFRT.

Results

Thirteen studies were included, three on tendinopathy, two on tendon ruptures, and eight on healthy Achilles, patellar, and supraspinatus tendons. A variety of outcomes were assessed, including pain, function, strength, and tendon morphological and mechanical properties, particularly changes in tendon thickness. BFRT intervention parameters were heterogeneously prescribed.

Conclusion

Despite a dearth of studies to date on the effects of BFRT on healthy tendons and in tendon pathologies, preliminary evidence for beneficial effects of BFRT on tendons and clinical outcomes is encouraging. As BFRT is a relatively novel method, definitive conclusions, and recommendations on BFRT in tendon rehabilitation cannot be made at present, which should be addressed in future research, due to the potential therapeutic benefits highlighted in this review.

Blood Flow Restriction Enhances Rehabilitation and Return to Sport: The Paradox of Proximal Performance

The use of blood flow restriction (BFR) within rehabilitation is rapidly increasing as further research is performed elucidating purported benefits such as improved muscular strength and size, neuromuscular control, decreased pain, and increased bone mineral density. Interestingly, these benefits are not isolated to structures distal to the occlusive stimulus. Proximal gains are of high interest to rehabilitation professionals, especially those working with patients who are limited due to pain or postsurgical precautions. The review to follow will focus on current evidence and ongoing hypotheses regarding physiologic responses to BFR, current clinical applications, proximal responses to BFR training, potential practical applications for rehabilitation and injury prevention, and directions for future research. Interestingly, benefits have been found in musculature proximal to the occlusive stimulus, which may lend promise to a greater variety of patient populations and conditions. Furthermore, an increasing demand for BFR use in the sports world warrants further research for performance research and recovery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

A bibliometric analysis study of blood flow restriction using CiteSpace

[Purpose] To assess the current state-of-the-art and the prevailing trends regarding the global use of blood flow restriction (BFR) in the past 20 years. [Participants and Methods] We retrieved literature relating to BFR from 1999 to 2020 using Web of Science. We conducted a bibliometric analysis of countries/institutions, cited journals, authors/cited authors, cited references, and keywords using CiteSpace. An analysis of counts and centrality was used to examine publication output, countries/institutions, core journals, active authors, foundation references, hot topics, and frontiers. [Results] Seven hundred seventy five references were included and the total number of publications has been continually increasing over the investigated period. Representatives of important academic groups are the Japanese scholars from the University of Tokyo as represented by Takashi Abe. Jeremy Paul Loenneke’s article (centrality: 0.15) was the most representative and symbolic reference with the highest centrality. The three topics identified were intervention (intensity resistance exercise, IRE), physiology (ischemia and muscular function) and behavior (adaptation and increase). The four frontier topics were phosphorylation, reduction, low intensity and arterial occlusion. [Conclusion] This study provides an insight into BFR and offers valuable information for BFR researchers to identify new perspectives for potential cooperation with collaborators and their related cooperative institutions.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy and Its Use for Rehabilitation and Return to Sport: Physiology, Application, and Guidelines for Implementation

Blood flow restriction (BFR) is an expanding rehabilitation modality that uses a tourniquet to reduce arterial inflow and occlude venous outflow in the setting of resistance training or exercise. Initially, this technique was seen as a way to stimulate muscular development, but improved understanding of its physiologic benefits and mechanism of action has allowed for innovative clinical applications. BFR represents a way to decrease stress placed on the joints without compromising improvements in strength, whereas for postoperative, injured, or load-compromised individuals BFR represents a way to accelerate recovery and prevent atrophy. There is also growing evidence to suggest that it augments cardiovascular fitness and attenuates pain. The purpose of this review is to highlight the physiology and evidence behind the various applications of BFR, with a focus on postoperative rehabilitation. While much remains to be learned, it is clear that blood flow restriction therapy stimulates muscle hypertrophy via a synergistic response to metabolic stress and mechanical tension, with supplemental benefits on cardiovascular fitness and pain. New forms of BFR and expanding applications in postoperative patients and athletes hold promise for expedited recovery. Continued adherence to rehabilitation guidelines and exploration of BFRs physiology and various applications will help optimize its effect and prescription.

Level of Evidence

V, expert opinion.

Rotator cuff strength is not augmented by blood flow restriction training

OBJECTIVE

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training utilizes a tourniquet applied to the upper or lower extremities (UE or LE) to occlude blood flow while exercising. BFR training may help augment strength in muscles that are proximal to BFR cuff application. However, prior studies have failed to demonstrate augmented strength gains in the rotator cuff when the tourniquet is applied to the UE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if a protocol consisting of LE exercises, performed with BFR, followed by rotator cuff exercises was superior in augmenting strength, and cross-sectional area (CSA) of the rectus femoris, in untrained subjects when compared to a non-BFR training group.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

University.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-five subjects (mean age 25.8 ± 1.6 y) randomized to a BFR or non-BFR group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Muscular strength measured via hand held dynamometer and the CSA of the dominant rectus femoris was measured by diagnostic ultrasound.

RESULTS

Both groups experienced significant gains in LE and rotator cuff strength. Strength increased in the BFR group by 11.6% for the supraspinatus, 34.1% for shoulder ER, 23.4% for the quadriceps, and 17.1% for the hamstrings. Strength increased in the non-BFR group by 7.3% for the supraspinatus, 20% for shoulder ER, 12.8% for the quadriceps, and 10.7% for the hamstrings. However, there were no differences in strength gains between groups. Neither group experienced a significant increase in CSA for the rectus femoris.

CONCLUSION

The BFR protocol used in this study did not augment strength for the rotator cuff in subjects who also performed LE exercises under occlusion.