Cargando…

Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of low-load blood flow restricted resistance training (BFR-RT) versus high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence to training in clinical musculoskeletal populations. DATA SOURCES:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jørgensen, Stian Langgård, Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Signe, Bohn, Marie Bagger, Høgsholt, Mathias, Aagaard, Per, Mechlenburg, Inger
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10601135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37880727
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00750-z
_version_ 1785126132892303360
author Jørgensen, Stian Langgård
Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Signe
Bohn, Marie Bagger
Høgsholt, Mathias
Aagaard, Per
Mechlenburg, Inger
author_facet Jørgensen, Stian Langgård
Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Signe
Bohn, Marie Bagger
Høgsholt, Mathias
Aagaard, Per
Mechlenburg, Inger
author_sort Jørgensen, Stian Langgård
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of low-load blood flow restricted resistance training (BFR-RT) versus high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence to training in clinical musculoskeletal populations. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Medline, Embase, SportDiscus was searched on the 30(th) May 2022. REVIEW METHODS: This study was conducted as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included if they (i) included patients, (ii) comprised of a BFR-RT intervention protocol and a group who performed HL-RT (≥ 70%1RM) for at least eight exercise sessions, and (iii) involved at least 1 exercise that targeted the lower limbs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model with an adjustment to the confidence interval. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 303 participants (BFR-RT: n = 151; HL-RT: n = 152) were identified. HL-RT and BFR-RT showed similar gains in dynamic (1-10RM) knee extensor strength and leg press strength, quadriceps cross sectional area, sit-to-stand performance, and patient reported pain and function. There was a moderate effect favoring BFR-RT for increasing maximal isometric knee extensor strength. The grading of certainty in evidence was low-to-very low for all outcome variables. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis extends our current knowledge about BFR-RT and HL-RT as equally effective exercise methods for inducing gains in maximal muscle strength in healthy populations, by now also comprising patients suffering from various clinical musculoskeletal conditions. The certainty in the estimates was low-to-very low, prompting the inclusion of future higher-quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID (CRD42022337173). Registered June 18th 2022.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10601135
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106011352023-10-27 Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis Jørgensen, Stian Langgård Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Signe Bohn, Marie Bagger Høgsholt, Mathias Aagaard, Per Mechlenburg, Inger BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil Research OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of low-load blood flow restricted resistance training (BFR-RT) versus high-load resistance training (HL-RT) on muscle strength, muscle mass, physical function, patient-reported outcomes, and adherence to training in clinical musculoskeletal populations. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Medline, Embase, SportDiscus was searched on the 30(th) May 2022. REVIEW METHODS: This study was conducted as a systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were included if they (i) included patients, (ii) comprised of a BFR-RT intervention protocol and a group who performed HL-RT (≥ 70%1RM) for at least eight exercise sessions, and (iii) involved at least 1 exercise that targeted the lower limbs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The meta-analyses were performed using a random effects model with an adjustment to the confidence interval. RESULTS: Seven RCTs comprising 303 participants (BFR-RT: n = 151; HL-RT: n = 152) were identified. HL-RT and BFR-RT showed similar gains in dynamic (1-10RM) knee extensor strength and leg press strength, quadriceps cross sectional area, sit-to-stand performance, and patient reported pain and function. There was a moderate effect favoring BFR-RT for increasing maximal isometric knee extensor strength. The grading of certainty in evidence was low-to-very low for all outcome variables. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis extends our current knowledge about BFR-RT and HL-RT as equally effective exercise methods for inducing gains in maximal muscle strength in healthy populations, by now also comprising patients suffering from various clinical musculoskeletal conditions. The certainty in the estimates was low-to-very low, prompting the inclusion of future higher-quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID (CRD42022337173). Registered June 18th 2022. BioMed Central 2023-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC10601135/ /pubmed/37880727 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00750-z Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Jørgensen, Stian Langgård
Kierkegaard-Brøchner, Signe
Bohn, Marie Bagger
Høgsholt, Mathias
Aagaard, Per
Mechlenburg, Inger
Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effects of blood-flow restricted exercise versus conventional resistance training in musculoskeletal disorders—a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10601135/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37880727
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13102-023-00750-z
work_keys_str_mv AT jørgensenstianlanggard effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kierkegaardbrøchnersigne effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bohnmariebagger effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT høgsholtmathias effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT aagaardper effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mechlenburginger effectsofbloodflowrestrictedexerciseversusconventionalresistancetraininginmusculoskeletaldisordersasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis