Blood Flow Restriction Training in Rehabilitation: A Useful Adjunct or Lucy's Latest Trick?

No Differences in Exercise Performance, Perceptual Response, or Safety Were Observed Among 3 Blood Flow Restriction Devices

Purpose

To compare 3 separate blood flow restriction (BFR) systems in their capacity to reduce repetitions to failure, impact perceptual responses, and cause adverse events during a low-load free-flow exercise.

Methods

The study included healthy subjects aged 18 years or older who presented to an ambulatory-care sports medicine clinic. On day 1, participants' demographic characteristics and anthropomorphic measurements were recorded. Each participant performed dumbbell biceps curl repetitions to failure using 20% of his or her 1-repetition maximum weight with each arm. Participants were exposed to 3 different tourniquet systems for familiarization. On day 2, each participant's arm was randomized to a cuff system, and the participant performed 2 sets of biceps curl repetitions to failure with the cuff inflated. Repetitions to failure, rating of perceived effort (RPE), rating of perceived discomfort, and pulse oxygenation levels were recorded after each set. On day 3, participants completed a survey of their perceived delayed-onset muscle soreness.

Results

The final analysis was performed on 42 arms, with 14 limbs per system. The study population had a mean age of 28.7 ± 2.4 years and a mean body mass index of 24.9 ± 4.3. All 3 systems successfully reduced repetitions to failure compared with unrestricted low-load exercise from baseline to BFR set 1 and from baseline to BFR set 2. There were no significant between-group differences among BFR systems regarding the number of repetitions to failure performed at baseline versus BFR set 1 or BFR set 2. The Delfi Personalized Tourniquet System (PTS) cohort had the greatest reductions in repetitions to failure from BFR set 1 to BFR set 2 (P = .002) and reported the highest RPE after set 2 (P = .025).

Conclusions

The Delfi PTS, SmartCuffs Pro, and BStrong BFR systems were each safe and were able to significantly reduce repetitions to failure compared with a low-load free-flow condition when used in a BFR exercise protocol. The Delfi PTS system may produce a higher RPE with prolonged use in comparison to the other systems.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prospective cohort study.

A comparative study of the efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization and massage techniques in patients with patellofemoral joint pain

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) and manipulative therapy Tui-na techniques in the treatment of patients with patellofemoral joint pain syndrome, and to evaluate their impact on pain relief, functional improvement, and joint range of motion.

Methods

In this study, 25 patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome were enrolled, comprising of an intervention group of 13 patients who received IASTM treatment and a control group of 12 patients who received Tui-na manipulation therapy. The treatment cycle lasted for 4 weeks, featuring two interventions per week. Before treatment, the visual analog pain scale (VAS) of the knee, Lysholm score of the knee, modified Thomas test (MTT), and maximum isometric strength of the extensor muscles of the lower limbs were measured and recorded for both groups. After the first and last treatments, the aforementioned indexes were reassessed, and the maximum isometric muscle strength of the lower extremity extensors was measured only after 4 weeks of treatment had been completed.

Results

There was no significant difference in the basic information of the two intervention groups (p > 0. 05). After the first treatment and 4 weeks of treatment, the Lysholm score in both groups significantly improved (p < 0. 05), indicating that both interventions can improve the function of patients' lower limbs. However, the Lysholm score in the IASTM group significantly increased compared with that of the massage group after 4 weeks of treatment, indicating that its improvement in functional performance is superior. Both groups showed significant improvement in knee joint pain after the first treatment and 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0. 05), with the IASTM group having a lower VAS score and better pain improvement after 4 weeks of treatment. The strength of the two intervention groups significantly increased after the maximum isometric muscle strength test of the lower limb extensor muscles before and after 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0. 05). After the MTT test, the extension angle, deviation angle, and hip abduction angle of the tested legs in the two intervention groups were significantly reduced (p < 0. 001), indicating an improvement in lower limb joint mobility.

Conclusion

Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization treatment and Tui-na manipulation therapy significantly reduced pain, improved knee flexibility, and increased range of motion of the lower extremity in patients with PFPS. However, IASTM treatment significantly improved pain and function and sustained pain in the short to medium-term post-trial period.

Clinical trial registration

www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN88098928.

Effect of instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization combined with blood flow restriction training on function, pain and strength of patients with patellofemoral joint pain

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral pain syndrome is a prevalent sports injury that affects athletes both in their daily lives and during training. This condition causes pain in the area where the kneecap and thigh bone meet, and it can be quite debilitating. Whether an athlete is simply going about their day or pushing themselves to the limit during a workout, patellofemoral pain can be a significant hindrance.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of combining Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization (IASTM) treatment with blood flow restriction training on individuals with patellofemoral pain. Specifically, the study will assess improvements in pain levels, functional ability, strength, and joint mobility resulting from this treatment approach.

METHODS

Twenty-six patients diagnosed with patellofemoral pain were selected as observation subjects and randomly divided into two groups: the IASTM combined with blood flow restriction training treatment group (n = 13) and the IASTM treatment group alone (n = 13). The treatment period was 4 weeks. In this study, we conducted a comparison and analysis of the knee's visual analogue pain scale (VAS), Lysholm score, and a modified version of the Thomas test (MTT) at three different time points.In this subject paper, we compared and analyzed the VAS score of the knee, Lysholm score of the knee, and MTT at three different time points-before treatment, immediately after the first treatment, and after four weeks of treatment. Additionally, we recorded data using a maximum isometric muscle strength testing system for the lower extremity extensors four weeks before and after treatment.

RESULTS

In comparing the Lysholm scores within the groups, a significant difference was observed between the two groups following the initial treatment and after 4 weeks of treatment (p < 0.05). The scores increased, indicating a significant improvement in function. The VAS scores significantly differed after the first treatment and 4 weeks of treatment compared to before treatment (p < 0.05), indicating a significant improvement in pain. Additionally, after 4 weeks of treatment, the strength of the extensor muscle in the lower extremity significantly improved (p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the strength test between the groups (p > 0.05). The MTT test revealed significant changes in the three joint angles before and after treatment (p > 0.05), suggesting an improvement in joint mobility. Overall, these results demonstrate the effectiveness of the treatment in improving pain and muscle strength in the lower extremity.

CONCLUSION

The combination of IASTM treatment and blood flow restriction has been shown to significantly reduce pain and improve periprosthetic soft tissue flexibility. Additionally, IASTM treatment alone was found to be more effective in improving knee pain and muscle flexibility, ultimately leading to increased knee strength in a pain-free state. In terms of the overall treatment outcome, it was found that the combined treatment was significantly more effective than the adjuvant soft tissue release treatment alone.

Blood Flow Restriction Training: To Adjust or Not Adjust the Cuff Pressure Over an Intervention Period?

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training combines exercise and partial reduction of muscular blood flow using a pressured cuff. BFR training has been used to increase strength and muscle mass in healthy and clinical populations. A major methodological concern of BFR training is blood flow restriction pressure (BFRP) delivered during an exercise bout. Although some studies increase BFRP throughout a training intervention, it is unclear whether BFRP adjustments are pivotal to maintain an adequate BFR during a training period. While neuromuscular adaptations induced by BFR are widely studied, cardiovascular changes throughout training intervention with BFR and their possible relationship with BFRP are less understood. This study aimed to discuss the need for BFRP adjustment based on cardiovascular outcomes and provide directions for future researches. We conducted a literature review and analyzed 29 studies investigating cardiovascular adaptations following BFR training. Participants in the studies were healthy, middle-aged adults, older adults and clinical patients. Cuff pressure, when adjusted, was increased during the training period. However, cardiovascular outcomes did not provide a plausible rationale for cuff pressure increase. In contrast, avoiding increments in cuff pressure may minimize discomfort, pain and risks associated with BFR interventions, particularly in clinical populations. Given that cardiovascular adaptations induced by BFR training are conflicting, it is challenging to indicate whether increases or decreases in BFRP are needed. Based on the available evidence, we suggest that future studies investigate if maintaining or decreasing cuff pressure makes BFR training safer and/or more comfortable with similar physiological adaptation.

Optimising the 'Mid-Stage' Training and Testing Process After ACL Reconstruction

Outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction need improving, with poor return-to-sport rates and high risk of secondary re-injury. There is a need to improve rehabilitation strategies after ACL reconstruction, if we can support enhanced patient outcomes. This paper discusses how to optimise the mid-stage rehabilitation process after ACL reconstruction. Mid-stage is a difficult and vitally important stage of the functional recovery process and provides the foundation on which to commence late-stage rehabilitation training. Often many aspects of mid-stage rehabilitation (e.g. knee extensors isolated muscle strength) are not actually restored prior to return-to-sport. In addition, if we are to allow time for optimal late-stage rehabilitation and return-to-sport training, we need to optimise the mid-stage rehabilitation approach and complete it in a timely manner. This paper forms a key part of a strategy to optimise the ACL rehabilitation approach and considers factors more specific to mid-stage rehabilitation characterised in 3 areas: (1) muscle strength: muscle and joint specific, in particular at the knee level, with the knee extensors and flexors and distally with the triceps surae and proximally with the lumbo-pelvic-hip complex, as well as closed kinetic chain strength; (2) altered basic motor patterning (movement quality) and (3) fitness re-conditioning. In addition, the paper provides recommendations on how to implement these into practice, discussing training planning and programming and suggests specific screening to monitor work and when the athlete is able to progress to the next stage (e.g. late-stage rehabilitation criteria).

Recommendations for Hamstring Function Recovery After ACL Reconstruction

It is important to optimise the functional recovery process to enhance patient outcomes after major injury such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). This requires in part more high-quality original research, but also an approach to translate existing research into practice to overcome the research to implementation barriers. This includes research on ACLR athletes, but also research on other pathologies, which with some modification can be valuable to the ACLR patient. One important consideration after ACLR is the recovery of hamstring muscle function, particularly when using ipsilateral hamstring autograft. Deficits in knee flexor function after ACLR are associated with increased risk of knee osteoarthritis, altered gait and sport-type movement quality, and elevated risk of re-injury upon return to sport. After ACLR and the early post-operative period, there are often considerable deficits in hamstring function which need to be overcome as part of the functional recovery process. To achieve this requires consideration of many factors including the types of strength to recover (e.g., maximal and explosive, multiplanar not just uniplanar), specific programming principles (e.g., periodised resistance programme) and exercise selection. There is a need to know how to train the hamstrings, but also apply this to the ACLR athlete. In this paper, the authors discuss the deficits in hamstring function after ACLR, the considerations on how to restore these deficits and align this information to the ACLR functional recovery process, providing recommendation on how to recover hamstring function after ACLR.

EFFECT OF BLOOD FLOW RESTRICTION TRAINING ON MUSCULAR PERFORMANCE, PAIN AND VASCULAR FUNCTION

Background

Blood flow restriction (BFR) training enhances muscular strength and hypertrophy in several populations including older adults and injured athletes. However, the efficacy of emerging BFR technologies on muscular adaptations, vascular health, and pain is unclear.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine muscular performance, pain and vascular function in response to eight weeks of BFR compared to traditional resistance training and a control group.

Study Design

Randomized control trial.

Methods

Thirty-one overtly healthy participants (age: 23 ± 4y, 65% female) underwent eight weeks of supervised high load resistance training (RES), low load resistance training with BFR (BFR) or no training (control, CON). RES and BFR (with pneumatic bands) performed seven upper and lower body exercises, two to three sessions per week at 60% and 30% of one-repetition maximum (1RM), respectively. Twenty-four hours post-exercise, general muscle soreness was assessed via a visual analog scale (VAS) and present pain intensity (PPI) of the McGill Pain Questionnaire. At baseline and after eight weeks, participants underwent one-repetition maximum (1RM), and flow-mediated dilation (FMD) testing.

Results

At baseline all groups exhibited similar muscle strength and endurance and vascular function. At the end of training, RES and BFR groups significantly increased muscle strength (1RM) to a similar magnitude as compared to the CON group (p < 0.0001), but did not alter body composition. FMD significantly increased in RES and BFR groups compared to CON group (p = 0.006). VAS and PPI were similar between RES and BFR groups throughout the exercise sessions until VAS decreased in the BFR group after the last session compared to the RES group (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Compared to RES, BFR resulted in similar muscular performance (strength and endurance) and vascular improvements at a lower exercise intensity, suggesting BFR is an effective alternative to high load resistance training. Further longitudinal studies may gain greater understanding regarding general muscle pain and soreness when using BFR.

Level of Evidence

Therapy, Level 2.