Luozhifei Zhou, Benjamin Rothrauff, Lili Chen, Shirong Jin, Sixian He, Jinshen He
{"title":"前十字韧带重建术后血流限制训练康复与一般康复运动的比较：随机对照试验荟萃分析。","authors":"Luozhifei Zhou, Benjamin Rothrauff, Lili Chen, Shirong Jin, Sixian He, Jinshen He","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been found to reduce quadriceps atrophy and weakness after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. However, the clinical benefit of BFRT as compared to general rehabilitation exercise (GRE) alone remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the effects of BFRT and GRE on ACL reconstruction rehabilitation through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Elsevier and Biosis were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing BFRT and GRE following ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included muscle strength (extensor and flexor muscle general strength), Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, extensor muscle torque (peak torque and average torque) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). The secondary outcomes included a range of motion (ROM), pain, Y-balance and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 376 participants were included. The change in muscle strength (Mean difference, MD: 12.96, 95% confidence interval, [95% CI]: 7.02-18.91, heterogeneity, I<sup>2</sup> = 39%), Lysholm score (MD: 9.41, 95% CI: 8.93-9.88, I<sup>2</sup> = 40%) and IKDC score (MD: 9.88, 95% CI: 0.57-19.19, I<sup>2</sup> = 87%) of the BFRT group were superior to that of the GRE group at the time of last follow-up. However, no significant difference was found between the BFRT and the GRE groups regarding the change in muscle CSA, ROM, extensor muscle torque, pain score, Y-balance and PROMIS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BFRT seems to perform better than GRE in terms of functional improvement and muscle strength following ACL reconstruction, but there seems to be no significant difference between them in terms of joint mobility, pain relief, stability improvement and patient's perception of their disease and treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of blood flow restriction training rehabilitation and general rehabilitation exercise after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.\",\"authors\":\"Luozhifei Zhou, Benjamin Rothrauff, Lili Chen, Shirong Jin, Sixian He, Jinshen He\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been found to reduce quadriceps atrophy and weakness after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. However, the clinical benefit of BFRT as compared to general rehabilitation exercise (GRE) alone remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the effects of BFRT and GRE on ACL reconstruction rehabilitation through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Elsevier and Biosis were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing BFRT and GRE following ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included muscle strength (extensor and flexor muscle general strength), Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, extensor muscle torque (peak torque and average torque) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). The secondary outcomes included a range of motion (ROM), pain, Y-balance and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 376 participants were included. The change in muscle strength (Mean difference, MD: 12.96, 95% confidence interval, [95% CI]: 7.02-18.91, heterogeneity, I<sup>2</sup> = 39%), Lysholm score (MD: 9.41, 95% CI: 8.93-9.88, I<sup>2</sup> = 40%) and IKDC score (MD: 9.88, 95% CI: 0.57-19.19, I<sup>2</sup> = 87%) of the BFRT group were superior to that of the GRE group at the time of last follow-up. However, no significant difference was found between the BFRT and the GRE groups regarding the change in muscle CSA, ROM, extensor muscle torque, pain score, Y-balance and PROMIS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BFRT seems to perform better than GRE in terms of functional improvement and muscle strength following ACL reconstruction, but there seems to be no significant difference between them in terms of joint mobility, pain relief, stability improvement and patient's perception of their disease and treatment.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level II.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12527\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12527","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of blood flow restriction training rehabilitation and general rehabilitation exercise after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Purpose: Blood flow restriction training (BFRT) has been found to reduce quadriceps atrophy and weakness after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. However, the clinical benefit of BFRT as compared to general rehabilitation exercise (GRE) alone remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the effects of BFRT and GRE on ACL reconstruction rehabilitation through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Elsevier and Biosis were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing BFRT and GRE following ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included muscle strength (extensor and flexor muscle general strength), Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, extensor muscle torque (peak torque and average torque) and muscle cross-sectional area (CSA). The secondary outcomes included a range of motion (ROM), pain, Y-balance and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS).
Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 376 participants were included. The change in muscle strength (Mean difference, MD: 12.96, 95% confidence interval, [95% CI]: 7.02-18.91, heterogeneity, I2 = 39%), Lysholm score (MD: 9.41, 95% CI: 8.93-9.88, I2 = 40%) and IKDC score (MD: 9.88, 95% CI: 0.57-19.19, I2 = 87%) of the BFRT group were superior to that of the GRE group at the time of last follow-up. However, no significant difference was found between the BFRT and the GRE groups regarding the change in muscle CSA, ROM, extensor muscle torque, pain score, Y-balance and PROMIS.
Conclusion: BFRT seems to perform better than GRE in terms of functional improvement and muscle strength following ACL reconstruction, but there seems to be no significant difference between them in terms of joint mobility, pain relief, stability improvement and patient's perception of their disease and treatment.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
