Low-load blood flow restriction strength training in patients with COPD: a randomised single-blind pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of lower limb low-load blood flow restriction training (LL-BFRT) with high-load strength training (HL-ST) as part of an outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation programme on leg strength in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Participants were randomised to LL-BFRT or HL-ST (24 sessions). LL-BFRT was done at 30% 1-repetition maximum (1-RM) with 70% arterial occlusion pressure. HL-ST was done at 70% 1-RM. Primary outcome was isometric strength of knee extensors and flexors. Secondary outcomes were 1-RM, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Perceptions of dyspnoea and leg fatigue were recorded after every exercise. We compared groups with t-tests. RESULTS: We included 30 participants (13 women, 17 men, 64 (9) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 47 (18)% pred.), 24 completed the study. Isometric knee extensor strength improved to a clinically relevant degree in both legs in both groups (LL-BFRT: right leg 9 (20) Nm, left leg 10 (18) Nm; HL-ST: right leg 15 (26) Nm, left leg 16 (30) Nm, data are mean (SD)), without statistically significant or clinically relevant between-group differences (right leg mean difference= -6.4, 95% CI= -13.20 to 25.92 Nm, left leg mean difference= -5.6, 95% CI= -15.44 to 26.55 Nm). 1 min sit-to-stand test performance improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (4 (4) vs 1 (5) repetitions). Interestingly, physical activity improved to a clinically relevant degree only in the LL-BFRT group (1506 (2441) vs -182 (1971) steps/day). LL-BFRT lowered perceived in-exercise dyspnoea and increased leg fatigue compared with HL-ST in the initial 12 trainings. CONCLUSION: In patients with stable COPD undergoing outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation, LL-BFRT was not superior to HL-ST in improving leg strength. LL-BFRT led to similar strength gains as HL-ST while reducing perceptions of dyspnoea in the initial training phase. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04151771.

Implementation and Clinical Outcomes of Blood Flow Restriction Training on Adults With Cerebral Palsy: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Cerebral palsy (CP) is a congenital neurological disorder that causes musculoskeletal weakness and biomechanical dysfunctions. Strength training guidelines recommend at least 70% of 1-repetition maximum to increase muscle strength and mass. However, individuals with CP may not tolerate such high exercise intensity. Blood flow restriction (BFR) can induce similar gains in strength and muscle mass using loads as low as 20% to 30% 1-repetition maximum. This case series described the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of BFR in adults with CP and examined changes in muscle mass and strength. CASE DESCRIPTION: Three male participants with gross motor function classification system level 3 CP underwent strength training using a periodized 8-week BFR protocol. Outcomes included: Safety via blood pressure during and post-BFR exercises in addition to adverse event tracking; Feasibility via number of support people and time-duration of BFR exercises; Acceptability via rate of perceived discomfort (0-10) and qualitative interviews; Muscle Mass via ultrasonographic cross-sectional area of the quadriceps and hamstring; and Strength via (1) 3-repetition maximum in the leg press and knee extension, (2) isometric knee flexor and extensor muscle force measured with a hand-held dynamometer, and (3) 30-second sit-to-stand test. INTERVENTION: Participants replaced 2 exercises from their current regimen with seated knee extension and leg press exercises using progressively higher limb occlusion pressure and exercise intensity. Limb occlusion pressure started at 60%, by week 4 progressed to 80%, and then remained constant. The exercise repetition scheme progressed from fixed nonfailure repetition sets to failure-based repetition sets. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure never exceeded safety threshold, and no adverse events were reported. The BFR training was time-consuming and resource-intensive, but well-tolerated by participants (rate of perceived discomfort with a mean value of 5.8, 100% protocol adherence). Strength, as measured by 3-repetition maximum testing and 30-second sit-to-stand test, increased, but isometric muscle force and muscle mass changes were inconsistent. DISCUSSION: Blood flow restriction may be an effective means to increase strength in adults with CP who cannot tolerate high-intensity resistance training. Future research should compare BFR to traditional strength training and investigate mediators of strength changes in this population. VIDEO ABSTRACT AVAILABLE: for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A473 ).

Enhanced Pain Relief and Muscle Growth in Individuals with Low Back Instability: The Impact of Blood Flow Restriction Exercise during Sit to Stand Movements.

BACKGROUND Blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) improves muscle strength at a relatively low intensity by temporarily restricting blood flow. This study compared pain and quadriceps muscle mass (QMM) in 40 patients with lower back pain (LBP) undertaking sit-to-stand (STS) exercise with and without blood flow restriction. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty adults were divided into 2 groups, and the experimental group (n=20) performed an STS exercise with BFRE, and the control group (n=20) performed an STS exercise without BFRE. Blood pressure, including systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), was measured using a portable blood pressure monitor. Saturation of percutaneous oxygen (SpO2) was measured using oxygen saturation. Pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Oswestry disability index (ODI). QMM was assessed using ultrasonography. RESULTS Data were analyzed using paired and independent t tests. SBP (P=.000), DBP (P=.004), and SpO2 (P=.001) were significantly different in the experimental group, both before and during the intervention. The VAS scores showed a statistically significant difference in the post-test (P=.003) and rate of change (P=.009) between the groups. The ODI scores showed statistically significant differences in the post-test (P=.000) and rate of change (P=.001) comparison between the groups. The rate of change in QMM, including the rectus femoris (P=.000), vastus intermedius (P=.004), vastus medialis (P=.001), and vastus lateralis (P=.014), increased significantly in the experimental group compared to that in the control group. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the additive effect of BFRE on pain relief and QMM increase, thus contributing to existing knowledge about therapeutic exercise for the effective management of LBP.

Safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise in individuals with neurological disorders: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review evaluated the safety and efficacy of blood flow restriction exercise (BFRE) on skeletal muscle size, strength, and functional performance in individuals with neurological disorders (ND). METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and performed data extraction and quality assessments. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Study populations with ND, BFRE as intervention modality, outcome measures related to safety or efficacy. RESULTS: Out of 443 studies identified, 16 were deemed eligible for review. Three studies examined the efficacy and safety of BFRE, one study focused on efficacy results, and 12 studies investigated safety. Disease populations included spinal cord injury (SCI), inclusion body myositis (sIBM), multiple sclerosis (MS), Parkinson's disease (PD), and stroke. A moderate-to-high risk of bias was presented in the quality assessment. Five studies reported safety concerns, including acutely elevated pain and rating of perceived exertion levels, severe fatigue, muscle soreness, and cases of autonomic dysreflexia. Two RCTs reported a significant between-group difference in physical function outcomes, and two RCTs reported neuromuscular adaptations. CONCLUSION: BFRE seems to be a potentially safe and effective training modality in individuals with ND. However, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to limited quality and number of studies, small sample sizes, and a general lack of heterogeneity within and between the examined patient cohorts.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation necessitates restoration of quadriceps strength to minimize reinjury and optimize return to sport (RTS). Patients recovering from ACLR are limited by pain and activity restrictions, resulting in quadriceps muscle atrophy. Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy involves performing exercises while a specialized blood pressure cuff is applied to the proximal aspect of the operative extremity and inflated to 40% to 90% of the arterial occlusion pressure, as determined using Doppler ultrasonography. BFR is theorized to induce an anaerobic environment and metabolic stress during exercise, promoting muscle hypertrophy and strength gains. Although the physiological mechanism has not been fully elucidated, it is theorized that BFR combined with low-load resistance training could yield muscle adaptations comparable to those of high-load resistance training. For ACLR patients with pain and restrictions precluding high-intensity strength training, incorporation of BFR into postoperative rehabilitation protocols could help mitigate quadriceps weakness and promote RTS. Randomized controlled trials report a prolonged, dose-dependent relation between BFR use and quadriceps and hamstring strength gains, improved bone and muscle mass, and earlier RTS, whereas other studies report no significant difference in quadriceps size, strength, or patient satisfaction compared with controls. Furthermore, although generally considered safe, there are rare reports of associated adverse events such as rhabdomyolysis, and BFR should be avoided in patients with a history of thromboembolic disease or peripheral vasculopathy. The literature examining BFR after ACLR is heterogeneous; lacks standardization; and contains broad variation in reported cuff pressures, as well as timing and duration of BFR use, among protocols. Although the use of BFR after ACLR shows promise, further study is necessary to elucidate the efficacy, safety, and optimal protocols.

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.

Differential training benefits and motor unit remodeling in wrist force precision tasks following high and low load blood flow restriction exercises under volume-matched conditions.

BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in promoting strength gains beneficial for rehabilitation. Yet, the distinct functional advantages of BFR strength training using high-load and low-load protocols remain unclear. This study explored the behavioral and neurophysiological mechanisms that explain the differing effects after volume-matched high-load and low-load BFR training. METHODS: Twenty-eight healthy participants were randomly assigned to the high-load blood flow restriction (BFR-HL, n = 14) and low-load blood flow restriction (BFR-LL, n = 14) groups. They underwent 3 weeks of BFR training for isometric wrist extension at intensities of 25% or 75% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) with matched training volume. Pre- and post-tests included MVC and trapezoidal force-tracking tests (0-75%-0% MVC) with multi-channel surface electromyography (EMG) from the extensor digitorum. RESULTS: The BFR-HL group exhibited a greater strength gain than that of the BFR-LL group after training (BFR_HL: 26.96 ± 16.33% vs. BFR_LL: 11.16 ± 15.34%)(p = 0.020). However, only the BFR-LL group showed improvement in force steadiness for tracking performance in the post-test (p = 0.004), indicated by a smaller normalized change in force fluctuations compared to the BFR-HL group (p = 0.048). After training, the BFR-HL group activated motor units (MUs) with higher recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and longer inter-spike intervals (p = 0.002), contrary to the BFR-LL group, who activated MUs with lower recruitment thresholds (p < 0.001) and shorter inter-spike intervals (p < 0.001) during force-tracking. The discharge variability (p < 0.003) and common drive index (p < 0.002) of MUs were consistently reduced with training for the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: BFR-HL training led to greater strength gains, while BFR-LL training better improved force precision control due to activation of MUs with lower recruitment thresholds and higher discharge rates.

The effect of individualised post-exercise blood flow restriction on recovery following strenuous resistance exercise: A randomised controlled trial.

The purpose was to clarify the effect of individualised post-exercise blood flow restriction (PE-BFR) on measures of recovery following strenuous resistance exercise. Twenty resistance-trained adults were randomised to a PE-BFR or control (CON) group and completed a fatigue protocol of five sets of 10 repetitions of maximal intensity concentric and eccentric seated knee extension exercise. Participants then lied supine with cuffs applied to the upper thigh and intermittently inflated to 80% limb occlusion pressure (PE-BFR) or 20 mmHg (CON) for 30 min (3 × 5 min per leg). Peak torque (PT), time-to-peak torque (TTP), countermovement jump height (CMJ), muscle soreness (DOMS) and perceived recovery (PR) were measured pre-fatigue, immediately post-fatigue and at 1, 24, 48 and 72 h post-fatigue. Using a linear mixed-effect model, PE-BFR was found to have greater recovery of CMJ at 48 h (mean difference [MD]=-2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.1, 0.5, p = 0.019), lower DOMS at 48 (MD = 3.0, 95% CI 1.2, 4.9, p = 0.001) and 72 h (MD = 1.95, 95% CI -1.2, 1.5, p = 0.038) and higher PR scores at 24 (MD = -1.7, 95% CI -3.4, -0.1, p = 0.038), 48 (MD = -3.1, 95% CI -4.8, -1.5, p < 0.001) and 72 h (MD = -2.2, 95% CI -3.8, -0.5, p = 0.011). These findings suggest that individualised PE-BFR accelerates recovery after strenuous exercise.

Current Implementation and Barriers to Using Blood Flow Restriction Training: Insights From a Survey of Allied Health Practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Scott, BR, Marston, KJ, Owens, J, Rolnick, N, and Patterson, SD. Current implementation and barriers to using blood flow restriction training: Insights from a survey of allied health practitioners. J Strength Cond Res 38(3): 481-490, 2024-This study investigated the use of blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise by practitioners working specifically with clinical or older populations, and the barriers preventing some practitioners from prescribing BFR. An online survey was disseminated globally to allied health practitioners, with data from 397 responders included in analyses. Responders who had prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 308) completed questions about how they implement this technique. Those who had not prescribed BFR exercise ( n = 89) provided information on barriers to using this technique, and a subset of these responders ( n = 22) completed a follow-up survey to investigate how these barriers could be alleviated. Most practitioners prescribe BFR exercise for musculoskeletal rehabilitation clients (91.6%), with the BFR cuff pressure typically relative to arterial occlusion pressure (81.1%) and implemented with resistance (96.8%) or aerobic exercise (42.9%). Most practitioners screen for contraindications (68.2%), although minor side effects, including muscle soreness (65.8%), are common. The main barriers preventing some practitioners from using BFR are lack of equipment (60.2%), insufficient education (55.7%), and safety concerns (31.8%). Suggestions to alleviate these barriers included developing educational resources about the safe application and benefits of BFR exercise ( n = 20) that are affordable ( n = 3) and convenient ( n = 4). These results indicate that BFR prescription for clinical and older cohorts mainly conforms with current guidelines, which is important considering the potentially increased risk for adverse events in these cohorts. However, barriers still prevent broader utility of BFR training, although some may be alleviated through well-developed educational offerings to train practitioners in using BFR exercise.

Aerobic Training With Blood Flow Restriction on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: de Lemos Muller, CH, Farinha, JB, Leal-Menezes, R, and Ramis, TR. Aerobic training with blood flow restriction on muscle hypertrophy and strength: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1341-1349, 2024-Integrating strength and endurance training in a single exercise session, even on separate days, can be physically demanding and time-consuming. Therefore, there is a growing interest in identifying efficient training methods that can concurrently enhance cardiovascular and neuromuscular performance through a singular training modality. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the effects of aerobic training with blood flow restriction (AT + BFR) on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in healthy individuals. Our study was registered at PROSPERO and used multiple databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science), seeking clinical trials that examined AT + BFR influence on muscle hypertrophy and strength gains in individuals aged 18-60 years and comparing with aerobic training without BFR. The risk of bias and method quality were assessed using the ROB2.0 tool and PEDro scale, respectively, and the quality of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE method. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated for each outcome. Of 4,462 records, 29 full texts were assessed for eligibility, with 7 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that AT + BFR was more beneficial for inducing muscle hypertrophy than aerobic training without BFR (SMD [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.37-1.35]; I2 = 42%). Furthermore, AT + BFR was associated with greater improvements in muscle strength (SMD [95% CI] = 0.41 [0.10-0.72]; I2 = 0%). Despite the generally high risk of bias for both outcomes, these encouraging findings underscore the clinical significance of AT + BFR as a compelling tool for enhancing neuromuscular parameters.

Influence of Blood Flow Restriction on Neuromuscular Function and Fatigue During Forearm Flexion in Men.

ABSTRACT: Montgomery, TR Jr, Olmos, A, Sears, KN, Succi, PJ, Hammer, SM, Bergstrom, HC, Hill, EC, Trevino, MA, and Dinyer-McNeely, TK. Influence of blood flow restriction on neuromuscular function and fatigue during forearm flexion in men. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): e349-e358, 2024-To determine the effects of blood flow restriction (BFR) on the mean firing rate (MFR) and motor unit action potential amplitude (MUAPAMP) vs. recruitment threshold (RT) relationships during fatiguing isometric elbow flexions. Ten men (24.5 ± 4.0 years) performed isometric trapezoidal contractions at 50% maximum voluntary contraction to task failure with or without BFR, on 2 separate days. For BFR, a cuff was inflated to 60% of the pressure required for full brachial artery occlusion at rest. During both visits, surface electromyography was recorded from the biceps brachii of the dominant limb and the signal was decomposed. A paired-samples t test was used to determine the number of repetitions completed between BFR and CON. ANOVAs (repetition [first, last] × condition [BFR, CON]) were used to determine differences in MFR vs. RT and MUAPAMP vs. RT relationships. Subjects completed more repetitions during CON (12 ± 4) than BFR (9 ± 2; p = 0.012). There was no significant interaction (p > 0.05) between the slopes and y-intercepts during the repetition × condition interaction for MUAPAMP vs. MFR. However, there was a main effect of repetition for the slopes of the MUAPAMP vs. RT (p = 0.041) but not the y-intercept (p = 0.964). Post hoc analysis (collapsed across condition) indicated that the slopes of the MUAPAMP vs. RT during the first repetition was less than the last repetition (first: 0.022 ± 0.003 mv/%MVC; last: 0.028 ± 0.004 mv/%MVC; p = 0.041). Blood flow restriction resulted in the same amount of higher threshold MU recruitment in approximately 75% of the repetitions. Furthermore, there was no change in MFR for either condition, even when taken to task failure. Thus, BFR training may create similar MU responses with less total work completed than training without BFR.

Low-load Resistance Exercise with Perceptually Primed Practical Blood Flow Restriction Induces Similar Motor Performance Fatigue, Physiological Changes, and Perceptual Responses Compared to Traditional Blood Flow Restriction in Males and Females.

In the recent past, practical blood flow restriction (pBFR) using non-pneumatic, usually elastic cuffs has been established as a cost-effective alternative to traditional blood flow restriction (BFR) using pneumatic cuffs, especially for training in large groups. This study investigated whether low-load resistance exercise with perceptually primed pBFR using an elastic knee wrap is suitable to induce similar motor performance fatigue as well as physiological and perceptual responses compared to traditional BFR using a pneumatic nylon cuff in males and females. In a randomized, counterbalanced cross-over study, 30 healthy subjects performed 4 sets (30-15-15-15 repetitions) of unilateral knee extensions at 20% of their one-repetition-maximum. In the pBFR condition, each individual was perceptually primed to a BFR pressure corresponding to 60% of their arterial occlusion pressure. Before and after exercise, maximal voluntary torque, maximal muscle activity, and cuff pressure-induced discomfort were assessed. Moreover, physiological (i.e., muscle activity, muscle oxygenation) and perceptual responses (i.e., effort and exercise-induced leg muscle pain) were recorded during exercise. Moderate correlations with no differences between pBFR and BFR were found regarding the decline in maximal voluntary torque and maximal muscle activity. Furthermore, no to very strong correlations between conditions, with no differences, were observed for muscle activity, muscle oxygenation, and perceptual responses during exercise sets. However, cuff pressure-induced discomfort was lower in the pBFR compared to the BFR condition. These results indicate that low-load resistance exercise combined with perceptually primed pBFR is a convenient and less discomfort inducing alternative to traditional BFR. This is especially relevant for BFR training with people who have a low cuff-induced discomfort tolerance.

Potential considerations with estimating blood flow restriction pressure in the lower body using a narrower cuff.

Blood flow restriction pressures are typically set as a percentage of the arterial occlusion pressure. For those who do not have the ability to measure the arterial occlusion pressure, estimation equations are available. However, notable considerations are needed when estimating pressure with a narrow cuff (5 cm) in the lower body. A previously published equation in this journal was developed but was created only using 55% of the sample because the arterial occlusion of the others could not be obtained within the manufacturer's pressure limit. The purpose of this article was twofold: (1) to investigate how previous studies have implemented the equation and (2) to highlight potential concerns of using this equation. Two databases were used to locate articles that used the equation from Loenneke et al. (2015). We found that this equation had been cited 10 times to estimate arterial occlusion pressure with some notable concerns. Some did not use a 5 cm wide cuff, while others used it for participants who had arterial occlusion pressures exceeding 300 mmHg. To highlight the latter, we also applied the Loenneke et al. (2015) lower body equation to participants with arterial occlusion pressures known to exceed 300 mmHg to demonstrate potential concerns. This retrospective analysis found that 52% of the sample with known pressures over 300 mmHg (40 out of 77) would be estimated below 300 mmHg. This paper highlighted important considerations for those trying to estimate arterial occlusion pressure in the lower body with a narrow cuff (5 cm).

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.

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.

Investigating the autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction training pressures in healthy, physically active adults: an intervention study evaluating acute training responses and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) blood flow restriction (BFR) application on adverse effects, performance, cardiovascular and perceptual responses during resistance exercise. METHODS: Fifty-six healthy participants underwent AUTO and NAUTO BFR resistance exercise in a randomised crossover design using a training session with fixed amount of repetitions and a training session until volitional failure. Cardiovascular parameters, rate of perceived effort (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD) and number of repetitions were investigated after training, while the presence of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was verified 24 hours post-session. Adverse events during or following training were also monitored. RESULTS: AUTO outperformed NAUTO in the failure protocol (p<0.001), while AUTO scored significantly lower for DOMS 24 hours after exercise (p<0.001). Perceptions of effort and discomfort were significantly higher in NAUTO compared with AUTO in both fixed (RPE: p=0.014, RPD: p<0.001) and failure protocol (RPE: p=0.028, RPD: p<0.001). Sixteen adverse events (7.14%) were recorded, with a sevenfold incidence in the fixed protocol for NAUTO compared with AUTO (NAUTO: n=7 vs AUTO: n=1) and five (NAUTO) vs three (AUTO) adverse events in the failure protocol. No significant differences in cardiovascular parameters were found comparing both pressure applications. CONCLUSION: Autoregulation appears to enhance safety and performance in both fixed and failure BFR-training protocols. AUTO BFR training did not seem to affect cardiovascular stress differently, but was associated with lower DOMS, perceived effort and discomfort compared with NAUTO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04996680.

Editorial Commentary: Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Prior to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Small Effects Require Accurate Measurements.

A recent research study showed that blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy was safe and well tolerated but failed to demonstrate efficacy as a modality that provides greater gains in quadriceps strength when added to a standard home program in patients awaiting anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Despite employing a validated method of measurement, the results were highly variable, indicating the need for measurements with sufficient accuracy to detect the small, but potentially meaningful, gains in quadriceps strength that's been attributed to BFR. The results inform future investigations of BFR prior to ACL surgery by demonstrating the need for accurate methods of measurements when the anticipated effects are small.

Blood Flow Restriction Therapy for 2 Weeks Prior to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Did Not Impact Quadriceps Strength Compared to Standard Therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a 2-week home-based blood flow restriction (BFR) prehabiliation program on quadriceps strength and patient-reported outcomes prior to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Patients presenting with an ACL tear were randomized into two groups, BFR and control, at their initial clinic visit. Quadriceps strength was measured using a handheld dynamometer in order to calculate peak force, average force, and time to peak force during seated leg extension at the initial clinic visit and repeated on the day of surgery. All patients were provided education on standardized exercises to be performed 5 days per week for 2 weeks between the initial clinic visit and date of surgery. The BFR group was instructed to perform these exercises with a pneumatic cuff set to 80% of limb occlusion pressure placed over the proximal thigh. Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), knee range of motion, and quadriceps circumference were gathered at the initial clinic visit and day of surgery, and patients were monitored for adverse effects. RESULTS: A total 45 patients met inclusion criteria and elected to participate. There were 23 patients randomized to the BFR group and 22 patients randomized into the control group. No significant differences were noted between the BFR and control groups in any demographic characteristics (48% vs 64% male [P = .271] and average age 26.5 ± 12.0 vs 27.0 ± 11.0 [P = .879] in BFR and control, respectively). During the initial clinic visit, there were no significant differences in quadriceps circumference, peak quadriceps force generation, time to peak force, average force, pain, and PROMIS scales (P > .05 for all). Following completion of a 2-week home prehabilitation protocol, all patients indeterminant of cohort demonstrated decreased strength loss in the operative leg compared to the nonoperative leg (P < .05 for both) However, there were no significant differences in any strength or outcome measures between the BFR and control groups (P > .05 for all). There were no complications experienced in either group, and both were compliant with the home-based prehabilitation program. CONCLUSIONS: A 2-week standardized prehabilitation protocol preceding ACL reconstruction resulted in a significant improvement in personal quadriceps peak force measurements, both with and without the use of BFR. No difference in quadriceps circumference, strength, or patient reported outcomes were found between the BFR and the control group. The home-based BFR prehabiliation protocol was found to be feasible, accessible, and well tolerated by patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, randomized controlled trial with small effect size.

Can We Make Blood Flow Restriction Training More Accessible? Validity of a Low-Cost Blood Flow Restriction Device to Estimate Arterial Occlusion Pressure.

ABSTRACT: Keller, M, Faude, O, Gollhofer, A, and Centner, C. Can we make blood flow restriction training more accessible? Validity of a low-cost blood flow restriction device to estimate arterial occlusion pressure. J Strength Cond Res 37(8): 1581-1587, 2023-Evidence indicates that low-load resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR) results in comparable gains in muscle mass and muscle strength as high-load resistance training without BFR. Low-load BFR training is a promising tool for areas such as rehabilitation because individuals are exposed to low mechanical stress. However, BFR training is only safe and effective when the cuff pressure is individually adjusted to the arterial occlusion pressure (AOP). Generally, thresholds for AOP are typically determined with sophisticated laboratory material, including Doppler ultrasound and tourniquet systems. Therefore, this study investigated the validity of a low-cost BFR product with automatic AOP assessment (AirBands International) compared with the gold standard for determining the individual AOP. Valid measurements were obtained at the arms and legs in 104 healthy volunteers. For the arms ( n = 49), a Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 7 ± 13 mm Hg between the 2 methods, with slightly higher pressure levels for the gold standard (131 ± 14 mm Hg) than for the low-cost device (125 ± 17 mm Hg). For the legs ( n = 55), the low-cost device reached its maximum pressure capacity in 70% of subjects during AOP identification, making the results on the legs unreliable. Although the low-cost device is a valid tool for identifying the individual AOP in the arms, the device cannot be recommended for use at the legs because of its limited pressure capacity. When using the low-cost device for BFR training at the arms, it is recommended to apply the cuff pressure to 60% of the individual AOP to meet current BFR training guidelines.

Effect of Low-Load Blood Flow Restriction Training on Patients With Functional Ankle Instability: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Decreased muscle strength and balance in patients with functional ankle instability (FAI) can be effectively improved by ankle strength training. Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training increases muscle size and strength, but there is limited evidence from studies on muscle strength and balance in FAI patients. OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of LL-BFR training versus high-load training (HLT) on muscle strength and balance in FAI patients. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-six young adults with a history of FAI. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the LL-BFR and HLT groups performed 4 sets (30 × 15 × 15 × 15) of ankle training at 20% to 40% of the one-repetition maximum and 70% to 85% one-repetition maximum, respectively, twice a week for 6 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, inversion, and eversion muscle strength, and the Y-balance test scores were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 6 weeks; the thickness of the tibialis anterior, triceps surae, and peroneus longus muscles were assessed at baseline and after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Inversion, eversion, dorsiflexion, and plantar flexion muscle strength; tibialis anterior, triceps surae, and peroneus longus thickness; and Y-balance test scores were significantly increased in the LL-BFR group after 3 and 6 weeks compared with baseline (P < .05), with no significant difference between the LL-BFR and HLT groups after 6 weeks (P > .05). However, at the end of 3 weeks, eversion muscle strength and Y-balance test scores were significantly higher in the LL-BFR group than in the HLT group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Over 6 weeks, LL-BFR training was as effective as HLT in improving ankle muscle strength, muscle thickness, and balance in FAI patients, but LL-BFR training improved the ankle eversion muscle strength and dynamic balance more than HLT did in the early stages of the intervention. This finding will provide a new intervention strategy for the clinical rehabilitation of FAI patients.