The effects of high-pressure versus low-pressure blood flow restriction resistance exercise in individuals with lower limb musculoskeletal injuries and persistent pain: a randomised controlled trial

IF 2.2 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Physical Therapy in Sport Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-17 DOI:10.1016/j.ptsp.2026.101920

Luke Gray , Russell J. Coppack , Robert Barker-Davies , Robyn P. Cassidy , Alexander N. Bennett , Nick Caplan , Gavin Atkinson , Lauren Bradshaw , Luke Hughes , Peter Ladlow

{"title":"The effects of high-pressure versus low-pressure blood flow restriction resistance exercise in individuals with lower limb musculoskeletal injuries and persistent pain: a randomised controlled trial","authors":"Luke Gray , Russell J. Coppack , Robert Barker-Davies , Robyn P. Cassidy , Alexander N. Bennett , Nick Caplan , Gavin Atkinson , Lauren Bradshaw , Luke Hughes , Peter Ladlow","doi":"10.1016/j.ptsp.2026.101920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Compare the efficacy and acceptability of low load blood flow restriction (BFR) using two different limb occlusion pressures (LOP) on pain and function in individuals with lower-limb musculoskeletal injury (MSKI) and associated persistent pain.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Randomised controlled trial within a military residential rehabilitation setting.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>Twenty-eight individuals (N = 21 male; N = 7 female) with lower-limb MSKI were randomly allocated into: 1) BFR-RE with 80% LOP (BFR80), or 2) BFR-RE with 40% LOP (BFR40). Both groups completed 7x BFR-RE sessions during 5-days of residential rehabilitation at 20% 1-repetition maximum.</div></div><div><h3>Main outcome measures</h3><div>The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes include injury-specific outcomes, pain pressure threshold (PPT) and lower-limb muscle strength assessment. All reported outcomes reflect changes in scores.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>BPI ‘worst’ displayed a time × group interaction (<em>p</em> = .013), driven by higher pain in BFR80 from pre-to post-intervention (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 1.532, <em>p</em> = .006). There was a significant time × group interaction for BPI ‘severity’ (<em>p</em> = .022), driven by significant between-group differences at T3 (BFR80-BFR40: SMD = 1.305, <em>p</em> = .015). PPTs improved within-session and over time.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Both pressures demonstrated cumulative exercise-induced hypoalgesia via rising PPTs. BFR80 reported increased ‘worst’ pain score. Lower LOP may better preserve training volume and exercise tolerability.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49698,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy in Sport","volume":"79 ","pages":"Article 101920"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy in Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466853X26000416","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Compare the efficacy and acceptability of low load blood flow restriction (BFR) using two different limb occlusion pressures (LOP) on pain and function in individuals with lower-limb musculoskeletal injury (MSKI) and associated persistent pain.

Design

Randomised controlled trial within a military residential rehabilitation setting.

Participants

Twenty-eight individuals (N = 21 male; N = 7 female) with lower-limb MSKI were randomly allocated into: 1) BFR-RE with 80% LOP (BFR80), or 2) BFR-RE with 40% LOP (BFR40). Both groups completed 7x BFR-RE sessions during 5-days of residential rehabilitation at 20% 1-repetition maximum.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes include injury-specific outcomes, pain pressure threshold (PPT) and lower-limb muscle strength assessment. All reported outcomes reflect changes in scores.

Results

BPI ‘worst’ displayed a time × group interaction (p = .013), driven by higher pain in BFR80 from pre-to post-intervention (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 1.532, p = .006). There was a significant time × group interaction for BPI ‘severity’ (p = .022), driven by significant between-group differences at T3 (BFR80-BFR40: SMD = 1.305, p = .015). PPTs improved within-session and over time.

Conclusion

Both pressures demonstrated cumulative exercise-induced hypoalgesia via rising PPTs. BFR80 reported increased ‘worst’ pain score. Lower LOP may better preserve training volume and exercise tolerability.

查看原文本刊更多论文

高压与低压血流限制阻力运动对下肢肌肉骨骼损伤和持续性疼痛患者的影响：一项随机对照试验

目的：比较两种不同肢体闭塞压力（LOP）低负荷血流量限制（BFR）对下肢肌肉骨骼损伤（MSKI）及相关持续性疼痛患者疼痛和功能的疗效和可接受性。设计：在军事住宅康复环境中进行随机对照试验。参与者：28例下肢MSKI患者（男21例，女7例）随机分为：1)80% LOP的BFR-RE （BFR80）和40% LOP的BFR-RE （BFR40）。两组在5天的住宅康复期间均完成7次BFR-RE训练，每次最多重复20%。主要观察指标：主要观察指标为短期疼痛量表（BPI）。次要结局包括损伤特异性结局、痛压阈值（PPT）和下肢肌肉力量评估。所有报告的结果都反映了分数的变化。结果：BPI“最差”表现出时间×组交互作用（p = 0.013），由干预前和干预后BFR80的更高疼痛驱动（标准化平均差[SMD] = 1.532, p = 0.006）。T3组间差异显著（BFR80-BFR40: SMD = 1.305, p = 0.015），导致BPI“严重程度”存在显著的时间×组间相互作用（p = 0.022）。PPTs在治疗期间和一段时间内都有所改善。结论：两种压力均通过升高的PPTs表现出累积性运动诱导的痛觉减退。BFR80报告了“最差”疼痛评分的增加。较低的LOP可以更好地保持训练量和运动耐受性。

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Physical Therapy in Sport 医学-康复医学

CiteScore

4.50

自引率

8.30%

发文量

125

审稿时长

39 days

期刊介绍： Physical Therapy in Sport is an international peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for the publication of research and clinical practice material relevant to the healthcare professions involved in sports and exercise medicine, and rehabilitation. The journal publishes material that is indispensable for day-to-day practice and continuing professional development. Physical Therapy in Sport covers topics dealing with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of injuries, as well as more general areas of sports and exercise medicine and related sports science. The journal publishes original research, case studies, reviews, masterclasses, papers on clinical approaches, and book reviews, as well as occasional reports from conferences. Papers are double-blind peer-reviewed by our international advisory board and other international experts, and submissions from a broad range of disciplines are actively encouraged.