Intermittent blood flow restriction with low-load resistance training for older adults with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a chronic musculoskeletal disorder characterized by pain and functional impairment. Blood flow restriction (BFR) with low-load resistance training (LLRT) demonstrates a similar improvement in clinical outcomes to high-load resistance training (HLRT) in treating KOA. It has not been established whether intermittent blood flow restriction (iBFR) with LLRT can lead to clinical outcomes that are comparable to those produced by continuous blood flow restriction (cBFR) with LLRT and HLRT. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the efficacy of iBFR with LLRT on pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence in KOA patients. METHODS: This is a three-arm, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial utilizing blinded assessors. Two hundred thirteen participants will be randomly allocated to one of the following three groups: iBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with iBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); cBFR group-receiving 4 months of LLRT with cBFR, twice weekly (n = 71); or HLRT group-receiving 4 months of HLRT without BFR, twice weekly (n = 71). The primary outcome is pain. The secondary outcomes include the WOMAC, muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, perceptions of discomfort and effort, and adherence. Pain and WOMAC will be measured at the baseline and 4 and 12 months after randomizations. Muscle strength, muscle mass, and physical function will be measured at the baseline and 4 months after randomizations. The perceptions of discomfort and effort will be measured during the first and final sessions. DISCUSSION: BFR with LLRT has a similar improvement in clinical outcomes as HLRT. However, cBFR may cause elevated ratings of perceived exertion and local discomfort, compromising patient tolerability and treatment adherence. If iBFR with LLRT could produce improvement in clinical outcomes analogous to those of HLRT and iBFR with LLRT, it could be considered an alternative approach for treating patients with KOA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2300072820. Registered on June 26, 2023.

Association between passing return-to-sport testing and re-injury risk in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Inconsistent results have been obtained regarding the association between return-to-sport (RTS) testing and the risk of subsequent re-injury following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the potential association between passing of RTS and the risk of re-injury for patients after ACLR. Methods: This meta-analysis was registered in INPLASY with the registration number INPLASY202360027. The electronic databases MedLine, EmBase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched to identify eligible studies from their inception up to September 2023. The investigated outcomes included knee injury, secondary ACL, contralateral ACL injury, and graft rupture. The pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total number of nine studies involving 1410 individuals were selected for the final quantitative analysis. We noted that passing RTS test was not associated with the risk of subsequent knee injury (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.28-3.21; P = 0.929), secondary ACL injury (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.75; P = 0.945), and contralateral ACL injury (OR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.63-3.71; P = 0.347). However, the risk of graft rupture was significantly reduced (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.33-0.75; P = 0.001). Conclusions: This study found that passing RTS test was not associated with the risk of subsequent knee injury, secondary ACL injury, and contralateral ACL injury, while it was associated with a lower risk of graft rupture. Thus, it is recommended that patients after ACLR pass an RTS test in clinical settings.

Home-based exercise program and Health education in patients with patellofemoral pain: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain (PFP) is one of the most common disorders of the knee joint. Home-based exercise is an effective intervention to achieve self-management for chronic diseases. This study evaluated the effects of home-based exercise and health education in patients with PFP. METHODS: Patients who had PFP were randomly allocated to an intervention group (IG) or control group (CG). Patients in the IG received a 6-week tailored home-based exercise program with health education via remote support, while patients in the CG group only received health education. Clinical outcomes were compared using the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS) to measure function and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) to measure "worst pain" and "pain with daily activity". Muscle strength was measured according to the peak torque of the knee muscles using an isokinetic system. RESULTS: Among a total of 112 participants screened for eligibility, 38 were randomized and analyzed, including 19 participants in the intervention group and 19 participants in the control group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. At 6-week follow-up, the intervention group showed a greater worst pain reduction (between-group difference, -19.3 [95%CI, -23.2 to -15.5]; P < 0.01) and pain with daily activity (between-group difference, -22.9 [95%CI, -28.3 to -17.4]; P < 0.01) than the control group. Similarly, the intervention group had better improvements in AKPS (between-group difference, 9.0 [95%CI, 4.1 to 13.9]; P < 0.01) and knee extensor strength (between-group difference, 20.1 [95%CI, 14.5 to 25.8]; P < 0.01), compared to the control group. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Home-based exercise and health education resulted in less pain, better function, and higher knee muscle strength compared with no exercise in patients with PFP. A large randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up is required to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200056224 ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=135506 ). Registered on February 1, 2022.

Effects of lower limb exoskeleton gait orthosis compared to mechanical gait orthosis on rehabilitation of patients with spinal cord injury: A systematic review and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically evaluate the walking efficiency of lower limb exoskeleton gait orthosis and mechanical gait orthosis in patients with spinal cord injury. DATA SOURCES: Databases searched included: Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. STUDY SELECTION: Articles published in English from 1970 to 2022 investigating the impact of lower limb exoskeleton gait orthosis versus mechanical gait orthosis on gait outcomes in patients with spinal cord injury were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently extracted data and filled out predesigned forms. Information including authors, year of study, methodological quality, participant characteristics, intervention and comparison details, outcomes and results. The primary outcomes were kinematic data; the secondary outcomes were clinical tests. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data synthesis using meta-analysis was not possible due to the diversity of study designs, methodologies, and outcome measures. RESULTS: A total of 11 trials and 14 types of orthotics were included. The information gathered generally supported the gait improving effects of lower limb exoskeleton gait orthosis and mechanical gait orthosis in both kinematic data and clinical tests among patients with spinal cord injury. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review compared walking efficiency of patients with spinal cord injury wearing powered exoskeleton gait orthosis and non-powered mechanical gait orthosis. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusions. Future research should focus on improving trial quality and comprehensive parametric analysis of subjects with different physical conditions.