METHODOLOGY: Studies were identified by searching the SCOPUS, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, Web of Science, and CNKI databases up to May 13, 2024, using the following inclusion criteria: (a) healthy population; (b) comparison of LL-BFR vs HLR training; (c) pre- and post-training assessment of muscle strength (dynamic, isometric, and isokinetic), muscle power, jump, or speed performance; (d) PEDro scale score ≥4. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the PEDro tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, with meta-analyses conducted using the R program.
RESULTS: A total of 41 studies, involving 853 subjects, were included in the meta-analysis. Based on the PEDro scores and GRADE assessment, the overall quality of the included studies was assessed as moderate. LL-BFR training showed a slightly smaller effect on maximal strength compared to HLR training (ES = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.31 to -0.06], p < 0.01). There were no significant differences between LL-BFR and HLR training for muscle power (ES = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33 to 0.24], p > 0.05), jump performance (ES = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.30 to 0.15], p > 0.05), and speed (ES = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71 to 0.15], p > 0.05). Additionally, individual characteristics (i.e., age, gender, and training status) and training parameters (i.e., training duration, frequency, cuff pressure, and cuff width) did not significantly moderate the training effect.
CONCLUSIONS: LL-BFR training showed slightly less improvement in maximal strength compared to HLR training but demonstrated comparable effects on muscle power, jump performance, and speed in healthy individuals in healthy individuals. These findings suggest that LL-BFR may be a practical and effective alternative for individuals seeking performance improvements with lower training loads.
METHOD: This study was conducted on 19 healthy subjects (non-habitual 8; habitual 11), non-smoking and between 21 and 30 years of age. Using laser speckle flowgraphy (LSFG), three areas of optical nerve head were analyzed which are vessel, tissue, and overall, each with ten pulse waveform parameters, namely mean blur rate (MBR), fluctuation, skew, blowout score (BOS), blowout time (BOT), rising rate, falling rate, flow acceleration index (FAI), acceleration time index (ATI), and resistive index (RI). Two-way mixed ANOVA was used to determine the difference between every two groups where p
METHODS: Seven consenting participants presenting with mixed etiology leg ulcers participated in this study. Microvascular flow and pulsatility was measured in the wound bed and in the skin surrounding the wound using laser speckle contrast imaging. Measurements were made at baseline and when the venous pumps of the leg were activated by 1 Hz intermittent neuromuscular stimulation of the common peroneal nerve. The nerve was stimulated transdermally at the head of the fibula.
RESULTS: When activated by NMES, wound bed flux increased by 38% (95% CI, 11%-73%; P = .023), and periwound flux increased by 19% (95% CI, 9%-32%; P = .009). Pulsatility increased in the wound bed by 214% (95% CI, 51%-985%; P = .017) and in the periwound by 122% (95% CI, 38%-299%; P = .014).
CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that NMES is effective in augmenting microvascular flow in leg ulcers with combined venous and arterial etiology.
METHODS: Eight internal carotid arteries from different medical centers were diagnosed as stenosed internal carotid arteries, as plaques were found at different locations on the vessel. A computational fluid dynamics solver was developed based on an open-source code (OpenFOAM) to test the flow ratio and energy loss of those stenosed internal carotid arteries. For comparison, a healthy internal carotid artery and an idealized internal carotid artery model have also been tested and compared with stenosed internal carotid artery in terms of flow ratio and energy loss.
RESULTS: We found that at a given common carotid artery bifurcation, there must be a certain flow distribution in the internal carotid artery and external carotid artery, for which the total energy loss at the bifurcation is at a minimum; for a given common carotid artery flow rate, an irregular shaped plaque at the bifurcation constantly resulted in a large value of minimization of energy loss. Thus, minimization of energy loss can be used as an indicator for the estimation of internal carotid artery stenosis.
METHOD: This prospective study conducted on 24 feet with CTEV (18 babies) with Pirani score ranging between 2 to 6. Eighteen normal babies (36 feet) were selected as control. We used Color Doppler Ultrasound to assess dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial arteries before initiating the treatment. Second ultrasound was performed in study group upon completion of Ponseti treatment.
RESULTS: The patients were from one week to 15 weeks of life. Dorsalis pedis arterial flows were absent in 7 clubfeet (29.1%) while the remaining 17 clubfeet (70.8%) had normal flow. There was a significant association between Pirani severity score and vascular status in congenital clubfoot. There was a higher proportion of clubfeet having abnormal vascularity when the Pirani severity score was 5 and more. In study group, posterior tibial arteries were detectable and patent in all feet. All normal feet in control group had normal arterial flow. There was a significant difference in vascular flow before and after the Ponseti treatment (p 0.031).
CONCLUSION: The study concludes that there is an association between Pirani severity score and arterial deficiency in CTEV. Ponseti treatment is safe in CTEV with arterial deficiency and able to reconstitute the arterial flow in majority of cases.
METHODS: Thirty-two adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP were randomized into two groups: Appendicular BFR exercise (BFR exercise) or control exercise (CON exercise). All participants trained (two times per week) for 10 wk, with a 12-wk follow-up. Participants performed three sets of leg extension (LE), plantar flexion (PF), and elbow flexion (EF) exercises followed by low-load TE exercise without BFR. Outcome measures included magnetic resonance imaging-derived muscle size (quadriceps and TE), strength (LE, PF, EF, and TE), and endurance (LE and TE).
RESULTS: There was no evidence for a cross-transfer of effect to the TE. There was also no statistically significant enhancement of limb skeletal muscle size or function of BFR relative to CON exercise at any time point; though, moderate effect sizes for BFR exercise were observed for enhanced muscle size and strength in the leg extensors.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-load BFR exercise of the appendicular muscles did not result in a cross-transfer of effect to the TE musculature. There was also no significant benefit of low-load BFR exercise on the appendicular muscle size and function, suggesting no benefit from low-load BFR exercise in adults with recurrent, nonspecific LBP.