Cargando…
The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction
There are a number of nonsurgical modalities used by athletes in attempts to improve performance or prevent, treat, and rehabilitate musculoskeletal injuries. A concise review of available evidence on common nonsurgical modalities used today is necessary, so that practitioners may appropriately coun...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32672728 http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00105 |
_version_ | 1783499040868007936 |
---|---|
author | Trofa, David P. Obana, Kyle K. Herndon, Carl L. Noticewala, Manish S. Parisien, Robert L. Popkin, Charles A. Ahmad, Christopher S. |
author_facet | Trofa, David P. Obana, Kyle K. Herndon, Carl L. Noticewala, Manish S. Parisien, Robert L. Popkin, Charles A. Ahmad, Christopher S. |
author_sort | Trofa, David P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | There are a number of nonsurgical modalities used by athletes in attempts to improve performance or prevent, treat, and rehabilitate musculoskeletal injuries. A concise review of available evidence on common nonsurgical modalities used today is necessary, so that practitioners may appropriately counsel patients. METHODS: A comprehensive review of relevant publications regarding cupping and blood flow restriction (BFR) from 2006 through 2019 was completed using PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS: There have been numerous investigations evaluating the efficacy of nonsurgical modalities for a myriad of musculoskeletal conditions. Cupping may be an effective option with low risk in treating nonspecific, musculoskeletal pain. Studies comparing BFR with non-BFR controls suggest that it may increase muscle strength and endurance for individuals undergoing rehabilitation or sport-specific training by mimicking the low oxygen environment during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsurgical modalities are low-cost treatment strategies with rates of adverse outcomes as low as 0.008% that will likely continue to increase in popularity. Despite the paucity of recent research in cupping and BFR, evidence suggests benefits with use. High-quality studies are needed to effectively evaluate these treatments, so that care providers can provide appropriate guidance based on evidence-based medicine. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7028774 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70287742020-03-10 The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction Trofa, David P. Obana, Kyle K. Herndon, Carl L. Noticewala, Manish S. Parisien, Robert L. Popkin, Charles A. Ahmad, Christopher S. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev Review Article There are a number of nonsurgical modalities used by athletes in attempts to improve performance or prevent, treat, and rehabilitate musculoskeletal injuries. A concise review of available evidence on common nonsurgical modalities used today is necessary, so that practitioners may appropriately counsel patients. METHODS: A comprehensive review of relevant publications regarding cupping and blood flow restriction (BFR) from 2006 through 2019 was completed using PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS: There have been numerous investigations evaluating the efficacy of nonsurgical modalities for a myriad of musculoskeletal conditions. Cupping may be an effective option with low risk in treating nonspecific, musculoskeletal pain. Studies comparing BFR with non-BFR controls suggest that it may increase muscle strength and endurance for individuals undergoing rehabilitation or sport-specific training by mimicking the low oxygen environment during exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Nonsurgical modalities are low-cost treatment strategies with rates of adverse outcomes as low as 0.008% that will likely continue to increase in popularity. Despite the paucity of recent research in cupping and BFR, evidence suggests benefits with use. High-quality studies are needed to effectively evaluate these treatments, so that care providers can provide appropriate guidance based on evidence-based medicine. Wolters Kluwer 2020-01-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7028774/ /pubmed/32672728 http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00105 Text en Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Trofa, David P. Obana, Kyle K. Herndon, Carl L. Noticewala, Manish S. Parisien, Robert L. Popkin, Charles A. Ahmad, Christopher S. The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title | The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title_full | The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title_fullStr | The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title_full_unstemmed | The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title_short | The Evidence for Common Nonsurgical Modalities in Sports Medicine, Part 2: Cupping and Blood Flow Restriction |
title_sort | evidence for common nonsurgical modalities in sports medicine, part 2: cupping and blood flow restriction |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7028774/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32672728 http://dx.doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00105 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT trofadavidp theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT obanakylek theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT herndoncarll theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT noticewalamanishs theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT parisienrobertl theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT popkincharlesa theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT ahmadchristophers theevidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT trofadavidp evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT obanakylek evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT herndoncarll evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT noticewalamanishs evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT parisienrobertl evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT popkincharlesa evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction AT ahmadchristophers evidenceforcommonnonsurgicalmodalitiesinsportsmedicinepart2cuppingandbloodflowrestriction |