Blood flow restriction training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Methodology

Meta-analysis

Population

20 studies in the systematic review, 13 in the meta-analysis; clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation populations, mean age 58 ± 14 y

Intervention

Low-load blood flow restriction (LL-BFR) training vs. conventional low-load (LL) training, and vs. heavy-load resistance training

Findings

Low-load blood flow restriction training produced significantly greater strength gains than conventional low-load training in clinical musculoskeletal rehabilitation. Heavy-load training still produced greater strength gains than BFR, so BFR is best positioned as a bridge modality when heavy loading is contraindicated — for example early post-surgical rehabilitation or painful joints — rather than as a replacement for heavy training.

Outcome measures

Muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy, physical function, pain and tolerability in musculoskeletal rehabilitation

Limitations

Only 13 studies in the meta-analysis with modest sample sizes; methodological quality was low-to-moderate; heterogeneous BFR protocols prevent a clear dose recommendation; published 2017 so newer trials are not included.

Original source

DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-097071 · PMID: 28259850