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

IF 2.4 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":2.4000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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).
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信