DESIGN: A meta-analysis was conducted to determine the potential impact of blood flow restriction on patients with knee injuries. PubMed, EBSCO, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies from January 2000 until January 2020. The mean differences of the data were analyzed using Revman 5.3 software with a 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Nine studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. These studies involved 179 patients who received L-BFR, 96 patients who underwent high-load resistance training, and another 94 patients who underwent low-load resistance training. The analysis of pooled data showed that patients in both the L-BFR (standardized mean difference, 0.83 [0.53, 1.14], P < 0.01) and high-load resistance training (standardized mean difference, -0.09 [-0.43, 0.24], P = 0.58) groups experienced an increase in muscle strength after the training. In addition, pain score was significantly reduced in the L-BFR group compared with the other two groups (standardized mean difference, -0.61 [-1.19, -0.03], P = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: Muscle strength increased after L-BFR and high-load resistance training compared with low-load resistance training. Furthermore, pain score was significantly reduced after L-BFR. Hence, L-BFR is a potential intervention to be applied in rehabilitation of knee injuries.
METHOD: A single, masked, controlled study was designed. This comprised two matched groups of 12 chronically ACLD patients awaiting reconstruction and a group of 12 matched uninjured control subjects. Only one ACLD group received a home-based exercise and educational programme. Assessment before and after the exercise intervention included: knee joint stability (clinical and KT1000 evaluation); muscle strength (Cybex II); standing balance and functional performance (agility, [corrected] and subjective tests).
RESULTS: At the time of initial assessment there were no statistically significant differences in any measures for the two ACLD groups but both ACLD groups were significantly different from the uninjured control group as regards quadriceps strength and function. Measures taken after six weeks showed no significant improvement in the untreated ACLD group or in the uninjured control group. The treated ACLD group showed significant improvement in the following measures: quadriceps strength measured at 60 degrees and 120 degrees per second (p < 0.001); single leg standing balance with eyes closed (p < 0.001); instrumented passive stability at 20 lb (89 N) force (p = 0.003); agility and subjective performance (p < 0.001). The incidence of unstable episodes had decreased in the treated ACLD group, reducing further damage to the joint.
CONCLUSION: This study leaves little doubt that pre-operative physiotherapy had a positive effect on motor function in ACLD subjects and should be prescribed routinely to maximize muscle stabilizing potential prior to reconstruction. Patients report improved stability and, in certain cases, may avoid surgery. The finding that exercise increased the passive stability of the joint was unexpected and requires further investigation.