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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Trofa, David P., Obana, Kyle K., Herndon, Carl L., Noticewala, Manish S., Parisien, Robert L., Popkin, Charles A., Ahmad, Christopher S.
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