{"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":2.4000,"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.
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).