He Jinrong, Zhang Lei, Wu Quanshuo, Zhang Jialin
School of Physical Education, Shanghai University of Sport, Shanghai, China.
School of Physical Education and Sport Science, South China Normal University, Canton, China.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2025 Feb 3;13(2):23259671241300145. doi: 10.1177/23259671241300145. eCollection 2025 Feb.
The effectiveness and practicality of blood flow restriction training (BFRT) as a nonsurgical intervention for treating patients with knee injuries are uncertain because of the small size of BFRT trials and inconsistent results.
To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the effectiveness of BFRT versus traditional resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in terms of pain, muscle strength, functional performance, self-reported function, muscle size, and adverse events during exercise.
Systematic review; Level of evidence: 1.
Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, and other databases for randomized controlled trials of BFRT interventions in patients with knee OA. Methodological and quality evaluations, heterogeneity analysis, and subgroup analysis of the included studies were conducted, and effect sizes were evaluated using mean differences or standardized mean differences (SMDs). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to explore the sources of heterogeneity.
Of 2826 initial studies, 6 studies (N = 228 patients) were included. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly affect pain relief (SMD, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.30 to 0.26]; = .88), muscle strength (SMD, 0.32 [95% CI, -0.33 to 0.96]; = .33), functional performance (SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, -0.29 to 0.80]; = .36), or self-reported function (SMD, -0.252 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.45]; = .52). However, BFRT reduced the risk of adverse events (risk ratio, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.20 to 1.01]; = .05). Subgroup analysis revealed that compared with low-load resistance training, BFRT significantly increased muscle size (SMD, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.09 to 1.68]; = .02). The quality-of-evidence assessment indicated that the evidence level for the above outcomes was low and that the strength of the recommendation was weak.
The results of our meta-analysis indicated that compared with resistance training, BFRT did not significantly improve symptom outcomes in patients with knee OA. It is important to acknowledge that the findings were limited by the small number of studies and sample sizes that were included.
由于血流限制训练(BFRT)试验规模较小且结果不一致,其作为一种治疗膝关节损伤患者的非手术干预措施的有效性和实用性尚不确定。
进行一项荟萃分析,比较BFRT与传统阻力训练对膝关节骨关节炎(OA)患者在疼痛、肌肉力量、功能表现、自我报告功能、肌肉大小以及运动期间不良事件方面的有效性。
系统评价;证据等级:1级。
根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,我们在科学网、PubMed、EMBASE和其他数据库中搜索了关于BFRT干预膝关节OA患者的随机对照试验。对纳入研究进行了方法学和质量评估、异质性分析及亚组分析,并使用平均差或标准化平均差(SMD)评估效应量。采用亚组和敏感性分析来探索异质性来源。
在2826项初始研究中,纳入了6项研究(N = 228例患者)。荟萃分析结果表明,与阻力训练相比,BFRT对疼痛缓解(SMD,-0.02 [95%CI,-0.30至0.26];P = 0.88)、肌肉力量(SMD,0.32 [95%CI,-0.33至0.96];P = 0.33)、功能表现(SMD,0.25 [95%CI,-0.29至0.80];P = 0.36)或自我报告功能(SMD,-0.252 [95%CI,-0.88至0.45];P = 0.52)均无显著影响。然而,BFRT降低了不良事件的风险(风险比,0.45 [95%CI,0.20至1.01];P = 0.05)。亚组分析显示,与低负荷阻力训练相比,BFRT显著增加了肌肉大小(SMD,0.88 [95%CI,0.09至1.68];P = 0.02)。证据质量评估表明,上述结果的证据水平较低,推荐强度较弱。
我们的荟萃分析结果表明,与阻力训练相比,BFRT并未显著改善膝关节OA患者的症状结局。必须认识到,这些发现受到纳入研究数量和样本量较少的限制。