Investigating the Use of an Intermittent Sequential Pneumatic Compression Arm Sleeve for Recovery After Upper-Body Exercise

Fundamentals or Icing on Top of the Cake? A Narrative Review of Recovery Strategies and Devices for Athletes

The sport and athletic performance industry has seen a plethora of new recovery devices and technologies over recent years, and it has become somewhat difficult for athletes, coaches, and practitioners to navigate the efficacy of such devices or whether they are even required at all. With the increase in recovery devices and tools, it has also become commonplace for athletes to overlook more traditional, well-established recovery strategies. In this narrative review, we discuss recovery strategies in relation to the hierarchy of scientific evidence, classifying them based on the strength of the evidence, ranging from meta-analyses through to case studies and reports. We report that foam rolling, compression garments, cryotherapy, photobiomodulation, hydrotherapy, and active recovery have a high level of positive evidence for improved recovery outcomes, while sauna, recovery boots/sleeves, occlusion cuffs, and massage guns currently have a lower level of evidence and mixed results for their efficacy. Finally, we provide guidance for practitioners when deciding on recovery strategies to use with athletes during different phases of the season.

The Effect of Pressotherapy on Performance and Recovery in the Management of Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: It has been demonstrated that pressotherapy used post-exercise (Po-E) can influence training performance, recovery, and physiological properties. This study examined the effectiveness of pressotherapy on the following parameters. Methods: The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ClinicalTrials has been completed up to March 2021. Inclusion criteria were: randomized control trials (RCTs) or cross-over studies, mean participant age between 18 and 65 years, ≥1 exercise mechanical pressotherapy intervention. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCT (RoB 2.0). Results: 12 studies comprised of 322 participants were selected. The mean sample size was n = 25. Pressotherapy significantly reduced muscle soreness (Standard Mean Difference; SMD = −0.33; CI = −0.49, −0.18; p < 0.0001; I2 = 7%). Pressotherapy did not significantly affect jump height (SMD = −0.04; CI = −0.36, −0.29; p = 0.82). Pressotherapy did not significantly affect creatine kinase level 24−96 h after DOMS induction (SMD = 0.41; CI = −0.07, 0.89; p = 0.09; I2 = 63%). Conclusions: Only moderate benefits of using pressotherapy as a recovery intervention were observed (mostly for reduced muscle soreness), although, pressotherapy did not significantly influence exercise performance. Results differed between the type of exercise, study population, and applied treatment protocol. Pressotherapy should only be incorporated as an additional component of a more comprehensive recovery strategy. Study PROSPERO registration number—CRD42020189382.

The efficacy of intermittent pneumatic compression and negative pressure therapy on muscle function, soreness and serum indices of muscle damage: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The study aimed to assess whether intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and intermittent negative pressure (INP) would attenuate the muscle damaging effects of eccentric exercise.

METHODS

Forty-five healthy males were recruited. Immediately post, 24 and 48 h post eccentric exercise consisting of 100 drop jumps, volunteers randomly received 30-min sessions of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC, n = 15) or intermittent negative pressure (INP, n = 15), or sham microcurrent (PT, n = 15). Creatine kinase (CK), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), isokinetic muscle strength, soreness and active flexion of the knee joint were measured after every therapy session.

RESULTS

No significant intergroup differences were observed in biochemical or functional measurements. However, there was an increase in muscle soreness (P < 0.05), CK and LDH activity (P < 0.05), and a reduction in muscle strength (P < 0.05) and range of active knee flexion (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prescription of IPC and INP did not attenuate the reduction of markers to muscle function or pain perception up to 48 h after muscle damaging exercise. Future research should focus on the potential impact of treatment frequency and duration on muscle recovery. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR); The trial registration number: ACTRN12621001294842; date of registration: 24/09/2021.