血流限制对足部和踝关节损伤后肌肉力量和稳定性的影响:一项系统综述。

IF 2.3 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Julia M Balboni, Karthik Madhira, Victor Martinez, Wei-Shao Tung, John G Kennedy, Arianna L Gianakos
{"title":"血流限制对足部和踝关节损伤后肌肉力量和稳定性的影响:一项系统综述。","authors":"Julia M Balboni, Karthik Madhira, Victor Martinez, Wei-Shao Tung, John G Kennedy, Arianna L Gianakos","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.106804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor musculoskeletal recovery following foot and ankle injury can result in chronic instability and persistent muscle weakness. Preliminary evidence has shown that blood flow restriction (BFR) rehabilitation can increase muscle strength and stability, helping to restore physical function and prevent repeated injury.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether BFR is more effective than traditional rehabilitation in improving muscle strength, size, and stability after foot and ankle injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Included studies compared the effectiveness of BFR rehabilitation to traditional foot and ankle rehabilitation exercises. Eligible patients were those with a history of foot or ankle injury. Muscle strength, size, and dynamic balance were assessed by comparing improvements in peak torque, cross-sectional area, and percent muscle activation. Methodological quality assessments were performed using the PEDro scale and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were of good to excellent quality according to the PEDro scale, and 5 studies were of moderate quality as per the MINORS criteria. Two studies compared the effect of BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation on muscle strength; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), <i>P</i> < 0.0001]. Two studies analyzed muscle activation following BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), <i>P</i> < 0.0001]. Data on dynamic balance was synthesized from two studies; the mean difference between the BFR and control groups was 1.23 [95%CI: (-1.55, 4.01); <i>P</i> = 0.39].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BFR rehabilitation is more effective than non-BFR rehabilitation at improving muscle strength and activation following foot and ankle injury. Additional studies are needed to develop a standardized BFR training protocol.</p>","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"16 6","pages":"106804"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179901/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Julia M Balboni, Karthik Madhira, Victor Martinez, Wei-Shao Tung, John G Kennedy, Arianna L Gianakos\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.106804\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor musculoskeletal recovery following foot and ankle injury can result in chronic instability and persistent muscle weakness. Preliminary evidence has shown that blood flow restriction (BFR) rehabilitation can increase muscle strength and stability, helping to restore physical function and prevent repeated injury.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine whether BFR is more effective than traditional rehabilitation in improving muscle strength, size, and stability after foot and ankle injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Included studies compared the effectiveness of BFR rehabilitation to traditional foot and ankle rehabilitation exercises. Eligible patients were those with a history of foot or ankle injury. Muscle strength, size, and dynamic balance were assessed by comparing improvements in peak torque, cross-sectional area, and percent muscle activation. Methodological quality assessments were performed using the PEDro scale and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were of good to excellent quality according to the PEDro scale, and 5 studies were of moderate quality as per the MINORS criteria. Two studies compared the effect of BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation on muscle strength; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), <i>P</i> < 0.0001]. Two studies analyzed muscle activation following BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), <i>P</i> < 0.0001]. Data on dynamic balance was synthesized from two studies; the mean difference between the BFR and control groups was 1.23 [95%CI: (-1.55, 4.01); <i>P</i> = 0.39].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BFR rehabilitation is more effective than non-BFR rehabilitation at improving muscle strength and activation following foot and ankle injury. Additional studies are needed to develop a standardized BFR training protocol.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47843,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"16 6\",\"pages\":\"106804\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179901/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.106804\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v16.i6.106804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:足部和踝关节损伤后肌肉骨骼恢复不良可导致慢性不稳定和持续的肌肉无力。初步证据表明,血流量限制(BFR)康复可以增加肌肉力量和稳定性,有助于恢复身体功能和防止重复损伤。目的:探讨BFR在改善足踝关节损伤后肌肉力量、大小和稳定性方面是否比传统康复更有效。方法:进行系统综述和荟萃分析。文章从MEDLINE、EMBASE和CENTRAL数据库检索。纳入的研究比较了BFR康复与传统足部和踝关节康复训练的有效性。符合条件的患者是有足部或踝关节损伤史的患者。通过比较峰值扭矩、横截面积和肌肉激活百分比的改善来评估肌肉力量、大小和动态平衡。方法学质量评估采用PEDro量表和非随机研究方法学指数(minor)。结果:10项研究符合纳入标准。根据PEDro量表,5项研究质量为良至优,根据minor标准,5项研究质量为中等。两项研究比较了BFR与非BFR康复对肌力的影响;BRF组与非bfr组的总平均差异为0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), P < 0.0001]。两项研究分析了BFR和非BFR康复后的肌肉激活情况;BRF组与非bfr组的总平均差异为0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), P < 0.0001]。动态平衡数据综合了两项研究;BFR组与对照组的平均差异为1.23 [95%CI: (-1.55, 4.01);P = 0.39]。结论:BFR康复比非BFR康复在改善足、踝损伤后肌肉力量和激活方面更有效。需要进一步的研究来制定标准化的BFR培训方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.

Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.

Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.

Effect of blood flow restriction on muscle strength and stability following foot and ankle injury: A systematic review.

Background: Poor musculoskeletal recovery following foot and ankle injury can result in chronic instability and persistent muscle weakness. Preliminary evidence has shown that blood flow restriction (BFR) rehabilitation can increase muscle strength and stability, helping to restore physical function and prevent repeated injury.

Aim: To determine whether BFR is more effective than traditional rehabilitation in improving muscle strength, size, and stability after foot and ankle injury.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Articles were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases. Included studies compared the effectiveness of BFR rehabilitation to traditional foot and ankle rehabilitation exercises. Eligible patients were those with a history of foot or ankle injury. Muscle strength, size, and dynamic balance were assessed by comparing improvements in peak torque, cross-sectional area, and percent muscle activation. Methodological quality assessments were performed using the PEDro scale and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).

Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies were of good to excellent quality according to the PEDro scale, and 5 studies were of moderate quality as per the MINORS criteria. Two studies compared the effect of BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation on muscle strength; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), P < 0.0001]. Two studies analyzed muscle activation following BFR and non-BFR rehabilitation; the overall mean difference between the BRF and non-BFR groups was 0.09 [95%CI: (0.05, 0.12), P < 0.0001]. Data on dynamic balance was synthesized from two studies; the mean difference between the BFR and control groups was 1.23 [95%CI: (-1.55, 4.01); P = 0.39].

Conclusion: BFR rehabilitation is more effective than non-BFR rehabilitation at improving muscle strength and activation following foot and ankle injury. Additional studies are needed to develop a standardized BFR training protocol.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
814
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信