{"title":"高压氧治疗对运动引起的肌肉损伤和酸痛的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Xiaoqin Luo, Ying Yu, Shibin Zhang, Fengxue Qi","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2025.07.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in facilitating recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury and soreness.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>China Knowledge Network, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus database inception until September 28, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>A randomized controlled trial to assess the effects on patients with exercise-induced muscle damage and soreness.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Mean difference and 95% CI for all outcome indicators were estimated using a fixed-effects model, adjusting for (1) first author, (2) year of publication, (3) sample size, (4) age, (5) method of injury induction, (6) parameters of hyperbaric oxygen intervention, (7) outcome measure, and (8) risk of bias indicators.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 10 articles comprising 299 subjects were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis identified that HBOT significantly accelerated recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury (95% CI, -76.19 to -33.11; P<.0001). Subgroup analyses further revealed that both higher (>2.0 atmosphere absolute [ATA]; 95% CI, -89.45 to -19.06; P=.003) and lower (≤2.0 ATA; 95% CI, -82.12 to -27.65; P<.0001) atmospheric pressures, as well as intervention durations of 60 minutes (95% CI, -76.87 to -25.51; P<.0001) and 100 minutes (95% CI, -102.41 to -23.29; P=.002), were effective in alleviating muscle injury. These beneficial effects were observed in both college students (95% CI, -82.00 to -9.56; P=.01) and elite athletes (95% CI, -86.28 to -32.71; P<.0001). In contrast, HBOT did not provide a significant therapeutic benefit for exercise-induced muscle soreness (95% CI, -0.91 to 0.48; P=.54). However, subgroup analyses revealed that muscle soreness was significantly reduced with an atmospheric pressure above 2.0 ATA (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.00; P=.05), a pressure ≤2.0 ATA (95% CI, 0.17to 1.28; P=.01), and with a 100-minute intervention (95% CI, -2.05 to -0.26; P=.01), whereas a 60-minute intervention did not show a significant effect (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.92; P=.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HBOT was statistically effective in promoting recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury. However, it did not enhance recovery from exercise-induced muscle soreness.</p>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy on Exercise-Induced Muscle Injury and Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xiaoqin Luo, Ying Yu, Shibin Zhang, Fengxue Qi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.apmr.2025.07.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in facilitating recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury and soreness.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>China Knowledge Network, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus database inception until September 28, 2024.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>A randomized controlled trial to assess the effects on patients with exercise-induced muscle damage and soreness.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Mean difference and 95% CI for all outcome indicators were estimated using a fixed-effects model, adjusting for (1) first author, (2) year of publication, (3) sample size, (4) age, (5) method of injury induction, (6) parameters of hyperbaric oxygen intervention, (7) outcome measure, and (8) risk of bias indicators.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 10 articles comprising 299 subjects were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis identified that HBOT significantly accelerated recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury (95% CI, -76.19 to -33.11; P<.0001). Subgroup analyses further revealed that both higher (>2.0 atmosphere absolute [ATA]; 95% CI, -89.45 to -19.06; P=.003) and lower (≤2.0 ATA; 95% CI, -82.12 to -27.65; P<.0001) atmospheric pressures, as well as intervention durations of 60 minutes (95% CI, -76.87 to -25.51; P<.0001) and 100 minutes (95% CI, -102.41 to -23.29; P=.002), were effective in alleviating muscle injury. These beneficial effects were observed in both college students (95% CI, -82.00 to -9.56; P=.01) and elite athletes (95% CI, -86.28 to -32.71; P<.0001). In contrast, HBOT did not provide a significant therapeutic benefit for exercise-induced muscle soreness (95% CI, -0.91 to 0.48; P=.54). However, subgroup analyses revealed that muscle soreness was significantly reduced with an atmospheric pressure above 2.0 ATA (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.00; P=.05), a pressure ≤2.0 ATA (95% CI, 0.17to 1.28; P=.01), and with a 100-minute intervention (95% CI, -2.05 to -0.26; P=.01), whereas a 60-minute intervention did not show a significant effect (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.92; P=.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The HBOT was statistically effective in promoting recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury. However, it did not enhance recovery from exercise-induced muscle soreness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2025.07.017\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2025.07.017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本荟萃分析旨在评估高压氧治疗(HBOT)促进运动性肌肉损伤和酸痛恢复的疗效。数据来源:中国知网(CNKI)、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、PubMed、Scopus数据库开通至2024年9月28日。资料选择:一项随机对照试验(RCT)来评估对运动引起的肌肉损伤和酸痛患者的影响。数据提取:使用固定效应模型估计所有结局指标的平均差异(MD)和95% CI,调整:(1)第一作者;(二)出版年份;(3)样本量;(4)年龄;(五)损伤诱导方法;(6)高压氧干预参数;(7)结果度量;(8)偏倚风险指标。数据综合:共纳入10篇文章299名受试者。荟萃分析发现,HBOT显著加速了运动性肌肉损伤的恢复[95% CI: -76.19 ~ -33.11, P < 0.00001)]。亚组分析进一步显示,较高(bbb2.0大气压,95% CI: -89.45 ~ -19.06, P = 0.003)和较低(≤2.0大气压,95% CI: -82.12 ~ -27.65, P < 0.0001)的大气压,以及60分钟(95% CI: -76.87 ~ -25.51, P < 0.0001)和100分钟(95% CI: -102.41 ~ -23.29, P = 0.002)的干预时间,都能有效缓解肌肉损伤。在大学生(95% CI: -82.00 ~ -9.56, P = 0.01)和优秀运动员(95% CI: -86.28 ~ -32.71, P < 0.0001)中均观察到这些有益效果。相比之下,HBOT对运动引起的肌肉酸痛没有显著的治疗效果(95% CI: -0.91至0.48,P = 0.54)。然而,亚组分析显示,当气压高于2.0 ATA (95% CI: -1.58至-0.00,P = 0.05),气压等于或低于2.0 ATA (95% CI: 0.17至1.28,P = 0.01),以及100分钟的干预(95% CI: -2.05至-0.26,P = 0.01)时,肌肉酸痛明显减轻,而60分钟的干预没有显示出显著的效果(95% CI: -0.17至0.92,P = 0.17)。结论:HBOT对促进运动性肌肉损伤的恢复具有统计学意义。然而,它并不能促进运动引起的肌肉酸痛的恢复。
Effects of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy on Exercise-Induced Muscle Injury and Soreness: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Objective: To assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in facilitating recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury and soreness.
Data sources: China Knowledge Network, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus database inception until September 28, 2024.
Study selection: A randomized controlled trial to assess the effects on patients with exercise-induced muscle damage and soreness.
Data extraction: Mean difference and 95% CI for all outcome indicators were estimated using a fixed-effects model, adjusting for (1) first author, (2) year of publication, (3) sample size, (4) age, (5) method of injury induction, (6) parameters of hyperbaric oxygen intervention, (7) outcome measure, and (8) risk of bias indicators.
Data synthesis: A total of 10 articles comprising 299 subjects were included in the analysis. The meta-analysis identified that HBOT significantly accelerated recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury (95% CI, -76.19 to -33.11; P<.0001). Subgroup analyses further revealed that both higher (>2.0 atmosphere absolute [ATA]; 95% CI, -89.45 to -19.06; P=.003) and lower (≤2.0 ATA; 95% CI, -82.12 to -27.65; P<.0001) atmospheric pressures, as well as intervention durations of 60 minutes (95% CI, -76.87 to -25.51; P<.0001) and 100 minutes (95% CI, -102.41 to -23.29; P=.002), were effective in alleviating muscle injury. These beneficial effects were observed in both college students (95% CI, -82.00 to -9.56; P=.01) and elite athletes (95% CI, -86.28 to -32.71; P<.0001). In contrast, HBOT did not provide a significant therapeutic benefit for exercise-induced muscle soreness (95% CI, -0.91 to 0.48; P=.54). However, subgroup analyses revealed that muscle soreness was significantly reduced with an atmospheric pressure above 2.0 ATA (95% CI, -1.58 to -0.00; P=.05), a pressure ≤2.0 ATA (95% CI, 0.17to 1.28; P=.01), and with a 100-minute intervention (95% CI, -2.05 to -0.26; P=.01), whereas a 60-minute intervention did not show a significant effect (95% CI, -0.17 to 0.92; P=.17).
Conclusions: The HBOT was statistically effective in promoting recovery from exercise-induced muscle injury. However, it did not enhance recovery from exercise-induced muscle soreness.
期刊介绍:
The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities.
Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.