Credibility of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-03 eCollection Date: 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671241300145
Jinrong He, Lei Zhang, Quanshuo Wu, Jialin Zhang
{"title":"Credibility of Blood Flow Restriction Training in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Jinrong He, Lei Zhang, Quanshuo Wu, Jialin Zhang","doi":"10.1177/23259671241300145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effectiveness and practicality of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as a nonsurgical intervention for treating patients with knee injuries are uncertain because of the small size of BFRT trials and inconsistent results.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of BFRT versus traditional resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of pain, muscle strength, functional performance, self-reported function, muscle size, and adverse events during exercise.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review; Level of evidence: 1.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases for randomized controlled trials of BFRT interventions in patients with knee OA. Methodological and quality evaluations, heterogeneity analysis, and subgroup analysis of the included studies were conducted, and effect sizes were evaluated using mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 2826 initial studies, 6 studies (N = 228 patients) were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly affect pain relief (SMD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.26]; <i>P</i> = .88), muscle strength (SMD, 0.32 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.96]; <i>P</i> = .33), functional performance (SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, -0.29 to 0.80]; <i>P</i> = .36), or self-reported function (SMD, -0.252 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.45]; <i>P</i> = .52). However, BFRT reduced the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.01]; <i>P</i> = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared with low-load resistance training, BFRT significantly increased muscle size (SMD, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.09 to 1.68]; <i>P</i> = .02). The quality-of-evidence assessment indicated that the evidence level for the above outcomes was low and that the strength of the recommendation was weak.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of our meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly improve symptom outcomes in patients with knee OA. It is important to acknowledge that the findings were limited by the small number of studies and sample sizes that were included.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 2","pages":"23259671241300145"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11789105/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241300145","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness and practicality of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as a nonsurgical intervention for treating patients with knee injuries are uncertain because of the small size of BFRT trials and inconsistent results.

Purpose: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of BFRT versus traditional resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of pain, muscle strength, functional performance, self-reported function, muscle size, and adverse events during exercise.

Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence: 1.

Methods: Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases for randomized controlled trials of BFRT interventions in patients with knee OA. Methodological and quality evaluations, heterogeneity analysis, and subgroup analysis of the included studies were conducted, and effect sizes were evaluated using mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.

Results: Of 2826 initial studies, 6 studies (N = 228 patients) were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly affect pain relief (SMD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.26]; P = .88), muscle strength (SMD, 0.32 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.96]; P = .33), functional performance (SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, -0.29 to 0.80]; P = .36), or self-reported function (SMD, -0.252 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.45]; P = .52). However, BFRT reduced the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.01]; P = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared with low-load resistance training, BFRT significantly increased muscle size (SMD, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.09 to 1.68]; P = .02). The quality-of-evidence assessment indicated that the evidence level for the above outcomes was low and that the strength of the recommendation was weak.

Conclusion: The results of our meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly improve symptom outcomes in patients with knee OA. It is important to acknowledge that the findings were limited by the small number of studies and sample sizes that were included.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
限制血流训练对膝关节骨性关节炎患者的可信度:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:限制血流训练(BFRT)作为非手术干预治疗膝关节损伤患者的有效性和实用性尚不确定,因为BFRT试验规模小,结果不一致。目的:开展一项荟萃分析,比较BFRT与传统阻力训练在膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)患者疼痛、肌肉力量、功能表现、自我报告功能、肌肉大小和运动期间不良事件方面的有效性。研究设计:系统评价;证据等级:1;方法:根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,我们检索了Web of Science、PubMed、EMBASE和其他数据库,寻找BFRT干预膝关节OA患者的随机对照试验。对纳入的研究进行方法学和质量评价、异质性分析和亚组分析,并使用平均差异或标准化平均差异(SMDs)评估效应量。采用亚组分析和敏感性分析探讨异质性的来源。结果:在2826项初始研究中,纳入6项研究(N = 228例患者)。meta分析结果显示,与阻力训练相比,BFRT对疼痛缓解没有显著影响(SMD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.30至0.26];P = 0.88),肌力(SMD, 0.32 [95% CI, -0.33 ~ 0.96];P = 0.33),功能表现(SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, -0.29至0.80];P = 0.36)或自我报告功能(SMD, -0.252 [95% CI, -0.88至0.45];P = .52)。然而,BFRT降低了不良事件的风险(风险比,0.45 [95% CI, 0.20至1.01];P = 0.05)。亚组分析显示,与低负荷阻力训练相比,BFRT显著增加肌肉大小(SMD, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.09至1.68];P = .02)。证据质量评估表明,上述结果的证据水平较低,建议的力度较弱。结论:我们的荟萃分析结果表明,与阻力训练相比,BFRT并没有显著改善膝关节OA患者的症状结局。重要的是要承认,研究结果受到研究数量和样本量的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
期刊最新文献
Midterm Functional Outcomes after Arthroscopically Assisted Stabilization for Acute Versus Chronic Type 5 Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries. Radiographic Predictors of Excessive Lower Limb Torsion in Patients With Recurrent Patellar Dislocation. Unperceived First-Time Anterior Shoulder Subluxation: The Role of MRI in Detection and Characterization of Pathoanatomy. Reliability of Existing Measures and Classification Systems For Trochlear Dysplasia. Postoperative Effects of Depression and Anxiety in Hip Arthroscopy at 2-Year Follow-up.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1