Blood Flow Restriction Therapy After Knee Surgery: Indications, Safety Considerations, and Postoperative Protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: DePhillipo NN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6203234 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Blood Flow Restriction Therapy After Knee Surgery: Indications, Safety Considerations, and Postoperative Protocol.
DePhillipo Nicholas N NN Kennedy Mitchell I MI Aman Zachary S ZS Bernhardson Andrew S AS O'Brien Luke L LaPrade Robert F RF
Arthroscopy techniques 20180924 10
Blood flow restriction (BFR) training involves occluding venous outflow while maintaining arterial inflow by the application of an extremity tourniquet after surgery. BFR ultimately reduces oxygen delivery to muscle cells, similar to an anaerobic environment, and allows patients to exercise with low resistance and stimulates muscle hypertrophy and strength using heavy resistance. Thus orthopaedic surgeons and physical therapists are incorporating this type of training into their postoperative re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The current manuscript sets out a position stand for blood flow restriction (BFR) exercise, focusing on the methodology, application and safety of this mode of training. With the emergence of this technique and the wide variety of applications within the literature, the aim of this position stand is to set out a current research informed guide to BFR training to practitioners. This covers the use of BFR to enhance muscular strength and hypertrophy via training with resistance and aerobic exercise and preventing muscle atrophy using the technique passively. The authorship team for this article was selected from the researchers focused in BFR training research with expertise in exercise science, strength and conditioning and sports medicine.
| S-EPMC6530612 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of blood flow restriction training (BFR) in elderly with knee osteoarthritis (OA) is comparable to performing high-intensity protocols (70 to 80% of 1 RM [repetition maximum]) that are known to be effective for improving the muscle strength of knee extensors, with the advantage of generating less particular rating of perceived exertion and pain immediately after training. However, despite being a promising alternative, little is known about the best way to apply the BFR, such as level of pressure and combination or not with other therapeutic modalities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether different levels of blood flow restriction with low load (BFR + LL) and no load (BFR + rest) are non-inferior to high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE+BFRplacebo) for pain reduction in patients with knee OA.Methods/designThis clinical trial is a non-inferiority, five-arm, randomized, active-controlled, single trial which will be carried out in 165 patients of both sexes with knee OA, aged 50 years and older. Participants will be randomly allocated into 5 exercise groups (40% of BFR + LL; 80% of BFR + LL; 40% of BFR + rest; 80% BFR + rest, and HIRE+BFR placebo). A mixed linear model will be used to examine the effect of group-by-time interaction on pain intensity on the WOMAC subscale (primary outcome) and on disease severity, physical functional data, balance data, quality of life, global perceived effect scale, and muscle strength (secondary outcomes). Participants will be analyzed for intention-to-treat, and the statistical assessor blinded to the groups. The collection of outcomes 72 h after completion of the 16 weeks of interventions will be the primary measurement point. Follow-up secondary timepoints will be collected at 20, 28, 40, 52, and 64 weeks after the end of interventions, except for pain during the training, which will be measured immediately at the end of each session. Only the comparison of the primary outcome between the HIRE group with each BFR group will be analyzed in the non-inferiority framework, the other comparisons between the BFR groups for the primary outcome, and all secondary outcomes will be interpreted in the superiority framework.DiscussionThe results of this clinical trial can point out more clearly to ways to optimize the BFR training with the minimum of pain immediately after training, which will allow the offer of an effective and more adherent strengthening training to patients with knee OA.Trial registrationRegistro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos, RBR-93rx9q . Registered on 23 July 2020. Version 1.0.
| S-EPMC8761307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by chronic pain, physical dysfunction, and reduced quality of life. Low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction (BFR) have presented results similar to those of high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE) without BFR provided that the exercise volume in both is paired. However, it is unclear whether BFR exercise with reduced load and volume generates clinical improvements similar to those of HIRE. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effects of BFR resistance exercise with very low load and low volume against HIRE in patients with knee OA for the outcomes of knee pain, muscle performance, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, perceived exertion during the exercises, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.MethodsThis two-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors and volunteers will involve 40 patients with knee OA. Two weekly treatment sessions will be provided for 12 weeks. Patients will perform very low-load (10% of 1-RM) and low-volume BFR exercise or HIRE (60% of 1-RM) for strengthening thigh muscles. The primary outcome will be the knee pain measured after 12 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes include knee pain 6 months after randomization, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, muscle performance, knee pain and perceived exertion during exercise, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.DiscussionIf the improvements in the outcomes are similar in the two groups, BFR exercise with reduced load and volume may be an interesting alternative in the treatment of knee OA, especially when exercises with high loads generate joint pain.Trial registrationRegistro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (REBEC), RBR-6pcrfm . Registered on July 10, 2018.
| S-EPMC6379934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In a pilot randomized clinical trial, participants aged ≥60 years (n = 35) with physical limitations and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) were randomized to 12 weeks of lower-body low-load resistance training with blood-flow restriction (BFR) or moderate-intensity resistance training (MIRT) to evaluate changes in muscle strength, pain, and physical function. Four exercises were performed three times per week to volitional fatigue using 20% and 60% of one repetition maximum (1RM). Study outcomes included knee extensor strength, gait speed, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) performance, and pain via the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC). Per established guidance for pilot studies, primary analyses for the trial focused on safety, feasibility, and effect sizes/95% confidence intervals of dependent outcomes to inform a fully-powered trial. Across three speeds of movement, the pre- to post-training change in maximal isokinetic peak torque was 9.96 (5.76, 14.16) Nm while the mean difference between groups (BFR relative to MIRT) was -1.87 (-10.96, 7.23) Nm. Most other directionally favored MIRT, though more spontaneous reports of knee pain were observed (n = 14) compared to BFR (n = 3). BFR may have lower efficacy than MIRT in this context-though a fully-powered trial is needed to definitively address this hypothesis.
| S-EPMC6406824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveSurgical procedures involving incisions of the chest wall regularly pose challenges for intra- and postoperative analgesia. For many decades, opioids have been widely administered to target both, acute and subsequent chronic incisional pain. Opioids are potent and highly addictive drugs that can provide sufficient pain relief, but simultaneously cause unwanted effects ranging from nausea, vomiting and constipation to respiratory depression, sedation and even death. Multimodal analgesia consists of the administration of two or more medications or analgesia techniques that act by different mechanisms for providing analgesia. Thus, multimodal analgesia aims to improve pain relief while reducing opioid requirements and opioid-related side effects. Regional anesthesia techniques are an important component of this approach.MethodsFor this narrative review, authors summarized currently used regional anesthesia techniques and performed an extensive literature search to summarize specific current evidence. For this, related articles from January 1985 to March 2022 were taken from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Terms such as "pectoral nerve blocks", "serratus plane block", "erector spinae plane block" belonging to blocks used in thoracic surgery were searched in different combinations.Key content and findingsPotential advantages of regional anesthesia as part of multimodal analgesia regiments are reduced surgical stress response, improved analgesia, reduced opioid consumption, reduced risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and early mobilization. Potential disadvantages include the possibility of bleeding related to regional anesthesia procedure (particularly epidural hematoma), dural puncture with subsequent dural headache, systemic hypotension, urine retention, allergic reactions, local anesthetic toxicity, injuries to organs including pneumothorax, and a relatively high failure especially with continuous techniques.ConclusionsThis narrative review summarizes regional anesthetic techniques, specific indications, and clinical considerations for patients undergoing thoracic surgery, with evidence from studies performed. However, there is a need for more studies comparing new block methods with standard methods so that clinical applications can increase patient satisfaction.
| S-EPMC9840019 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The purpose of the study was to explore how individuals in the United States of America applied BFR/KAATSU devices and administered BFR/KAATSU training. In addition, the study sought to examine safety topics related to BFR/KAATSU training. Methods: The study was completed using survey research. Subjects were recruited through Facebook, email, and word of mouth. The survey was developed, piloted, and finally deployed March 22, 2021-April 21, 2021. Results: In total, 148 consented to the research; 108 completed the survey, and of those 108, 70 indicated current use with BFR/KAATSU equipment. Professions represented included athletic training, personal training, physical therapy, and strength and conditioning. Among those currently using BFR/KAATSU training (n = 70), the following results were found. The most common devices used were inflatable devices (n = 43, 61.4%). Education completed prior to device administration was formal (n = 39, 55.7%) and/or self-directed (n = 37, 52.9%). Barriers were faced by 29 (41.4%) when trying to enact training. Techniques and parameters varied during application. Screening processes were used (n = 50, 71.4%) prior to training. The devices were used to determine restrictive pressure (n = 31, 44.3%), and a supine position was used most when determining initial restrictive pressure (n = 33, 47.1%). For subsequent restrictive pressure measurements, respondents repeated the same method used initially (n = 38, 54.3%). Workload was often defined as the length of time under tension/load (n = 22, 31.4%) and exercise was directly supervised (n = 52, 74.3%). Adverse effects included bruising, lightheadedness, and cramping (n = 15, 21.4%). The devices have also been applied on those with pathology (n = 16, 22.9%). Conclusion: Those using blood flow restriction/KAATSU devices came from several professions and used an assortment of devices for BFR/KAATSU training. Individuals applied devices using a variety of parameters on populations for which efficacy has and has not been well defined.
| S-EPMC9298746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care protocol has been shown to improve outcomes compared with traditional care in certain types of surgery.ObjectiveTo assess the association of use of the ERAS protocols with complications in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Design, setting, and participantsThis multicenter, prospective cohort study included patients recruited from 131 centers in Spain from October 22 through December 22, 2018. All consecutive adults scheduled for elective THA or TKA were eligible for inclusion. Patients were stratified between those treated in a self-designated ERAS center (ERAS group) and those treated in a non-ERAS center (non-ERAS group). Data were analyzed from June 15 through September 15, 2019.ExposuresTotal hip or knee arthroplasty and perioperative management. Sixteen individual ERAS items were assessed in all included patients, whether they were treated at a center that was part of an established ERAS protocol or not.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and mortality.ResultsDuring the 2-month recruitment period, 6146 patients were included (3580 women [58.2%]; median age, 71 [interquartile range (IQR), 63-76] years). Of these, 680 patients (11.1%) presented with postoperative complications. No differences were found in the number of patients with overall postoperative complications between ERAS and non-ERAS groups (163 [10.2%] vs 517 [11.4%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74-1.07; P?=?.22). Fewer patients in the ERAS group had moderate to severe complications (73 [4.6%] vs 279 [6.1%]; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P?=?.02). The median overall adherence rate with the ERAS protocol was 50.0% (IQR, 43.8%-62.5%), with the rate for ERAS facilities being 68.8% (IQR, 56.2%-81.2%) vs 50.0% (IQR, 37.5%-56.2%) at non-ERAS centers (P?<?.001). Among the patients with the highest and lowest quartiles of adherence to ERAS components, the patients with the highest adherence had fewer overall postoperative complications (144 [10.6%] vs 270 [13.0%]; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-0.99; P?<?.001) and moderate to severe postoperative complications (59 [4.4%] vs 143 [6.9%]; OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P?<?.001) and shorter median length of hospital stay (4 [IQR, 3-5] vs 5 [IQR, 4-6] days; OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99; P?<?.001).Conclusions and relevanceAn increase in adherence to the ERAS program was associated with a decrease in postoperative complications, although only a few ERAS items were individually associated with improved outcomes.
| S-EPMC7042927 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients affected by hepatic cirrhosis show reductions in muscle mass and function, with poor quality of life and functional performance. As such, resistance training with blood flow restriction (BFR-RT) could be a useful therapeutic tool for health promotion. Thus, we aim to verify the effects of this intervention on muscle strength, muscle mass, fiber Pennation angle, fascicle length, functional performance, quality of life, and fall risk scores in this population. METHODS:Thirty participants will be randomly distributed between 1) BFR-RT and 2) control (CTRL). Assessments will occur at three time points: before the training intervention (0?W), after 12 weeks (12?W), and at follow-up (24?W). The following variables will be assessed: Child-Pugh classification; MELD score; SF-36 questionnaire; fatigue severity index; 6-min walk test; timed-up and go; 30-s sitting and rising test; dietary record; one-repetition maximum (1-RM) strength test (knee extension exercise); and vastus lateralis' cross-sectional area, Pennation angle, and fascicle length. The BFR-RT group will undergo 12?weeks of knee extension exercise (1?×?30 repetitions and 3?×?15 repetitions at 20% 1-RM and 50% of total blood flow occlusion pressure), with two sessions per week. Data normality will be assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. In case of normal distribution, a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance will be implemented to test for differences in baseline values. A mixed model then will be applied for each dependent variable. In case of non-normal data distribution, a Kruskal-Wallis test will be implemented to test for differences in baseline values. Next, the Friedman test will be used to analyze repeated measures. Within- and between-group effect sizes will be calculated using Cohen's d for each outcome. Finally, the minimal clinically important difference will be analyzed with distribution-based methods. DISCUSSION:To our knowledge, this will be the first trial to investigate BFR-RT in patients with cirrhosis and evaluate the effects on neuromuscular parameters, functional performance, disease severity, and quality of life outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Brazilian Clinical Trials Registry (ReBec): RBR-395mfw. Registered on 25 August 2018.
| S-EPMC7257225 | biostudies-literature
Project description:"Nonspecific shoulder pain" encompasses various non-traumatic musculoskeletal shoulder disorders, diverging from diagnostic terminologies that refer to precise tissue-oriented clinical diagnosis. Blood flow restriction (BFR) training, involving partial arterial inflow and complete venous outflow restriction, has exhibited acute hypoalgesic effects primarily in healthy populations by increasing their pain thresholds. This study aims to examine whether a single BFR session with low-load exercises can alleviate pain perception among nonspecific shoulder pain patients. Conducted as a single-blind crossover randomised clinical trial, 48 adults (age range: 18 to 40) presenting with nonspecific shoulder pain will partake in two trial sessions. Random assignment will place participants into BFR or sham BFR groups and ask them to perform one exercise with BFR. Subsequently, participants will complete a shoulder girdle loading regimen comprising six exercises. The second session will involve participants switching treatment groups. Pain pressure thresholds (PPTs), shoulder pain and disability via the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) of shoulder external rotators, pain during active abduction, and peak pain during shoulder external rotation will be evaluated using the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS). Immediate post-exercise assessments will include patient-perceived pain changes using the global rating of change scale (GROC) and participant-rated perceived exertion (RPE), employing a modified Borg's scale (Borg CR10) post-BFR or sham BFR exercise session. Each session will encompass three assessment periods, and a combination of mixed-effect models and descriptive statistics will underpin the analysis. This protocol was approved by Cyprus National Bioethics Committee (ΕΕΒΚ/2023/48), and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration number: NCT05956288). Conclusion: The anticipated outcomes of this study illuminated the acute effects of BFR training on pain perception within the context of nonspecific shoulder pain, potentially advancing strategies for managing pain intensity using BFR techniques.
| S-EPMC10610701 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10696247 | biostudies-literature