Efficacy and safety of blood flow restriction training in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hao‐Nan Wang ◽  
Yan Chen ◽  
Lin Cheng ◽  
Yi‐Hui Cai ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Flow Restriction

The blood flow restriction training effect in knee osteoarthritis people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (11) ◽  
pp. 1378-1390
Author(s):  
João Vitor Ferlito ◽  
Samantha Angelica Pasa Pecce ◽  
Lucas Oselame ◽  
Thiago De Marchi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Knee Strength ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Therapeutic Occlusion

Objective: To synthesize evidence on the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) comparing with high (HLT) and low load (LLT), and on the influence of different forms of application in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Data sources: The CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed and BVS, which include Lilacs, Medline and SciELO, until April 2020. Review methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials used the PRISMA guidelines, whose main keywords were: Therapeutic Occlusion, Resistance Training, and Knee Osteoarthritie, blood flow restriction and Kaatsu training. Method quality was evaluated with the PEDro scale. When studies demonstrated homogeneity on outcome measures, the mean differences or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence interval were calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis for pooled synthesis. Results: Five articles were eligible in this review with moderate to low risk bias. Our results, showed no difference between BFR and HLT in knee strength (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI, –0.54 to 0.54, P = 1.00), function (SMD = −0.20, 95% CI, –0.45 to 0.06, P = 0.13), pain and volume. But, when compared BFR and LLT, the descriptive analysis demonstrated significant results in favor BFR to muscle strength (71.4% of measurement) and volume (MD = 1.66, 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.38, P < 0.00001), but not in pain or function. Conclusion: BFR can be used as a strategy in the rehabilitation of osteoarthritis due to gains in strength and volume with low mechanical stress. However, its application must be safe and individualized, since they can attenuate the stimuli offered by BFR.

scholarly journals Resistance Training with Blood Flow Restriction Compared to Traditional Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Mass in Non-Active Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 11441
Author(s):  
Darío Rodrigo-Mallorca ◽  
Andrés Felipe Loaiza-Betancur ◽  
Pablo Monteagudo ◽  
Cristina Blasco-Lafarga ◽  
Iván Chulvi-Medrano
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
High Intensity ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction

Low-intensity training with blood flow restriction (LI-BFR) has been suggested as an alternative to high-intensity resistance training for the improvement of strength and muscle mass, becoming advisable for individuals who cannot assume such a load. The systematic review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the LI-BFR compared to dynamic high-intensity resistance training on strength and muscle mass in non-active older adults. A systematic review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and reportedly followed the PRISMA statement. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus databases were searched between September and October 2020. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Twelve studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis pointed out significant differences in maximal voluntary contraction (MVC): SMD 0.61, 95% CI [0.10, 1.11], p = 0.02, I2 71% p < 0.0001; but not in the repetition maximum (RM): SMD 0.07, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.40], p = 0.66, I2 0% p < 0.53; neither in the muscle mass: SMD 0.62, 95% CI [−0.09, 1.34], p = 0.09, I2 59% p = 0.05. Despite important limitations such as scarce literature regarding LI-BFR in older adults, the small sample size in most studies, the still differences in methodology and poor quality in many of them, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a positive benefit in non-active older adults. LI- BFR may induce increased muscular strength and muscle mass, at least at a similar extent to that in the traditional high-intensity resistance training.

scholarly journals The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259574
Author(s):  
Leonardo Peterson dos Santos ◽  
Rafaela Cavalheiro do Espírito Santo ◽  
Thiago Rozales Ramis ◽  
Juliana Katarina Schoer Portes ◽  
Rafael Mendonça da Silva Chakr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Flow ◽  
Resistance Training ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Blood Flow Restriction ◽  
Flow Restriction ◽  
Low Intensity

Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently, to a reduction in functionality. On the other hand, moderate intensity resistance training(MIRT) and high intensity resistance training(HIRT) are able to improve muscle strength and muscle mass in RA and OA without affecting the disease course. However, due to the articular manifestations caused by these diseases, these patients may present intolerance to MIRT or HIRT. Thus, the low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction(LIRTBFR) may be a new training strategy for these populations. Objective To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to verify the effects of LIRTBFR on muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in RA and OA patients. Materials and methods A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials(RCTs), published in English, between 1957–2021, was conducted using MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0. Mean difference(MD) or standardized mean difference(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals(CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Five RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength, which was assessed by tests of quadriceps strength(SMD = -0.01[-0.57, 0.54], P = 0.96; I² = 58%) and functionality measured by tests with patterns similar to walking(SMD = -0.04[-0.39, 0.31], P = 0.82; I² = 0%). Compared to HIRT, muscle mass gain after LIRTBFR was reported to be similar. When comparing LIRTBFR with low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction(LIRT), the effect LIRTBFR was reported to be higher on muscle strength, which was evaluated by the knee extension test. Conclusion LIRTBFR appears to be a promising strategy for gains in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in a predominant sample of RA and OA women.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document